Witch hunts and gender-critical feminists

It matters to me when those grotesque little men on Twitter call us witches and organise social media hunts because at their backs stand Hopkins and Kramer and all the other torturers and murderers.

This. And all of it. Great post, Alice.

Sorry, it's long!

One of the most distressing cases I ever read about was that of Anna Pappenheimer who was executed in Bavaria in 1600 with her husband and sons. They were classic targets being from the bottom rung of society - Anna's father was a gravedigger and husband cleaned privies - and they were Lutherans in a Catholic state. The witch hunt was initiated from on high by the young duke who was looking to stamp his authority both politically and religiously but who also believed absolutely in the power of witches and blamed them for his wife's childless state. Tortured into confessions, the family were subjected to a grotesque public execution in the course of which Anna's breasts were sliced off and then rubbed into the mouths of her sons in a grim parody of breastfeeding.

Obviously, the obsession with nursing and witches runs deep - the witch's teat, used to suckle the devil or a familiar was a common theme. Women's power was limited, but only women could give birth and nourish babies and a woman's role as mother also, inevitably, meant that she had been sexually active. This seems to have aroused in some rather fevered and lurid concerns - most notably in the Malleus Maleficarum, the C15th work of two Dominican priests which drips with misogynistic loathing. The authors contended that women were untruthful, superstitious (ironic!), carnal creatures whose unrestrained lusts rendered men impotent and worse. They were also suspicious of the midwives who, they believed, would provide stillborn (and therefore unbaptised) children to witches to eat or make potions from. Now, it has been argued that this was a particularly nasty work even for the period and there is evidence that even the Spanish Inquisition found it extreme. The suspicion of midwives does not seem to have been widely shared - in fact in England and Scotland persecutions of midwives were rare and while they did play a role in many trials, it was usually in examining the accused for teats etc. However, I don't think we can dismiss it. The trial of Anne Boleyn shows how easily women's sexuality could be construed as deviance and tied to witchcraft and while midwives may not have been targeted, other women who were present at births (or indeed who stayed away) were often accused of causing the death of an infant.

It's also true that the Malleus Maleficarum coincides with the start of the period when the devil becomes a more important agent in witchcraft. Magic and sorcery in preceding periods were frequently indistinguishable from science - alchemists worked at court. It was, of course, something which could work harm: Alice Perres, mistress of Edward III, was accused of gaining his affection and causing madness through magic. However, in the main, the lurid sexual angle and the idea of congress with diabolical forces was absent. Once this takes root, it is natural that women are the main accused: Eve having, through female weakness, allowed evil into the garden and caused the fall of man.

This lurid angle plays out in the examination of the witch. As I mentioned, this was often done by other women like midwives, but it would be witnessed by the male official and the witch-finders who carried out pricking were male. The disturbing interest and minute inspection of the body of the accused is often distasteful in the records: there are reports of women being taken to the town hall and stripped naked and pricked in a room full of magistrates. A woman would also be stripped to be whipped and the state of her breasts is frequently commented on. Worse things occurred - rape of very young prisoners and vaginal mutilation.

The frequency with which women turned on each other and the fact that women often outnumbered men as witnesses has sometimes been used to minimise charges of misogyny. I think this is slightly disingenuous but it is interesting. Women's place in this patriarchal society was fragile and I think there was an element of what to do with older dependant women and the guilt associated with treating them badly. Marina Warner in her work on fairy tales draws attention to the role of older women in providing childcare while mothers worked: stories often, therefore, ally the young heroine with an older crone (possibly a fairy in disguise). The vilification of the stepmother points to the concern that the family of a dead wife will be usurped by her successor competing for scant family resources. I think these concerns of precarious status and shifting loyalty kept women wary. So, sadly I don't think the proto-feminists gathered at the Sabat, but when families of women did cultivate a reputation as witches they could, for a time, exercise a certain power as we see in trials like that of the Pendle witches in 1612. This probably informs some of the confessions - the momentary thrill of being feared. Sadly, there may also have been suppressed guilt for any illicit affairs or neglect of a child which they might have come to believe was caused by a baleful influence.

Clearly though, the notion of unobserved (by men) females in the birth chamber or in matriarchal families frightened authorities. I think we still see this and the desire to infiltrate female space (because what are we plotting?) along with the need to police sexuality. It matters to me when those grotesque little men on Twitter call us witches and organise social media hunts because at their backs stand Hopkins and Kramer and all the other torturers and murderers. But it exposes them. One good and crucial difference for us is that we are actually talking and gathering and we are educated.

Heresy very interesting post. I've just read 'Witch: Unleashed' by Lisa Lister, talking about different modern witch beliefs. She talks about coming under pressure to be 'trans inclusive' as she is writing a book about women, for women, where biology is the core of woman, and could not be inclusive. She celebrates (in her words) 'women bleed five days every month yet don't die'. It's amazing.

And this sort of talk incites utter rage, and words like 'exclusion' as if to mention it is hateful/upsetting to hear, because it's women not only mentioning but celebrating the things that men do not and cannot ever have, a separation of something that cannot be taken or appropriated, something that cannot be shared in, is a demonstration of power and independence that threatens the foundations of patriarchy.

So interesting Alice. Please tell us more.

More please Alice. I'm learning so much from this

YY. Maria McLachlan who is a sceptic and Andy Lewis have done a good job of highlighting the lazy thinking of other "skeptics" on this issue. They really don't question this much. If this was homeopathy or any other subject they were talking about, given the lameness of the scientific evidence available for innate gender identity they would be laughed off the internet. By people just like them.

Thank you Heresy! Yes, I find it bizarre that people who laugh at creationists or climate change denies will nevertheless believe in a gendered 'soul'. Cicero said that to be in ignorance of the past was to remain a child - I think there are definitely lessons. There are parallels with the way we've seen immigrants treated too: many of these women were the most marginalised and reviled, often living off charity. If you can see them as threatening and evil, it alleviates guilt for letting them suffer. I was thining about something else, so I'll be back!

I know a fair amount but please do, Alice.

Sorry, witches were mentioned and like a spirit summoned by incantation up I pop. It is endlessly fascinating and disturbing.

I think with history one should always be wary of seeing too many parallels or using it to make a contemporary point. This is especially pertinent here as there have been arguments - with which I concur - that some feminist writers have exaggerated or misinterpreted the witch trial period. For example, some have grossly inflated the numbers killed in Europe into the millions (from more reasonable estimates of 50,000 to 100,000) while others seek to ascribe some organisation of quasi religious fertility cults of proto-feminists to the accused women. I suppose the former seeks to ramp up the misogyny at play (although there is no need!) and the latter gives agency back to the accused.

Having said that, I agree with Heresy's points and I'm going to make some more comparisons anyway!

The first interesting point about the sustained period of witch trials throughout Europe (sometimes referred to by the sensationalist term “witchcraze”) is that it was much later than many people believe - roughly the mid 16th to 18th century. It wasn't born of mediaeval superstition and cruelty (although, obviously there were prior incidences of witch trials). In fact, in the dark ages, St Boniface declared the belief unchristian and Charlemagne decreed execution for anyone burning witches. It's assumed that the witch trial period ended with the Enlightenment, but it wasn't that people suddenly become rational overnight - in fact the exercise of some pretty dark superstition took place simultaneously with the age of Newton, Locke, Hooke, Boyle, Harvey etc and the birth of what we would regard as science and medicine. The political theorist, Hobbes wrote scathing in Leviathan (1651) of those who believed in witches but other scholars were less keen to dismiss the belief - especially as it opened one to accusations of atheism. History is not all about progress and we can get complacent about it.

Why there was an explosion across Europe of trials is hard to pin down and there are, obviously, many causal factors but one thing common throughout Europe was the disruption of the religious order caused by reformation and counter-reformation. Interestingly, neither Protestants nor Catholics had a monopoly on how fervently they persecuted - although it varied from country to country and town to town. However, what is clear is that rulers and religious leaders had good cause to seek to impose ideological conformity and obedience (which obviously had political as well as religious significance as rulers were firmly allied to one faith or the other). Organised religion becomes increasingly patriarchal and dogmatic: peasant folk belief which had existed alongside religion, now becomes dissenting and heretical. There is also considerable unease amongst reformers like Knox as well as Popes and kings of the governance by women (Elizabeth, Mary, Catherine de Medici, Marie of Guise etc) which they felt upended God’s ordained hierarchy.

Somewhere in the region of 85% of accused witches were women. The men tended to be implicated because of a relationship with a woman rather than independently. Generally, they were of lower social class, but not always and, of course, women were instrumental in accusing others. For some, it will have been to cement a place in a patriarchal world by ‘proving’ loyalty - some will have acted for their husbands or fathers in paying off a dispute with a neighbour for example. For some it will have been protection - deflecting the attention onto a more vulnerable target. Some will actually have believed or would be searching for reasons for terrible events - a bereaved mother, for example, trying to blame someone for the death of a baby. All will have been conditioned by patriarchal powers to see themselves as lesser than their male interrogators.

I think it's interesting that today we have a period of rationality in which, nevertheless, we have an explosion in ludicrous anti-science conspiracy theories - some of which get official sanction from different political standpoints. We also have a breakdown of old orders: the uncertainties in the west of Brexit and Trump, the rise of ideologues, and assertions of articles of faith and feeling over evidence and experts. This belief is useful for all sides: the right get to alienate feminists from their natural supporters on the centre / left while the more misogynistic elements of the left get to assert a patriarchal narrative in the guise of being progressive. Women's progress is pushed back: the dissenter GC women are the witches but the ‘cool’ girls will also see their rights eroded as they hand the narrative back to the men to define and contain womanhood. Many of the women who sought to save themselves from witch trials by accusing others, ultimately came themselves to trial and, of course, by then events were out of hand.

I haven't even got on to the disturbing elements of sadism and prurient interest in the female body and the disturbing symbolism in some of the tortures etc. It speaks of the fascination and revulsion of the female that exists as well as the extreme misogyny and fear of women's sexuality. Some of it is horrific but interesting so I may be back later if anyone can stand it.

As nurturers, women naturally show empathy to the trans debate.
We do understand.
We do have empathy.
We also want to protect our young from dangers and warn them of the lies and deceit they will encounter in their lives.

Most of them still don't have a clue about women's lives, issues and experiences.

How can they, everything is handed to them on a plate and they have male biology.

They can never understand having to run to just keep pace and female biology, it's never going to happen.

Males as a class tend to be lazy when it comes to household duties, they feel entitled to so much, they are not very empathetic and a third of them have criminal records.

Midwifery existed long, long before doctors exerted their power.
Nurturing existed long, before doctors exerted their power.

Women have been very successful at this because they are rather good at it.

Men in power have never liked this truth.

It all boils down to money, power and men's fear of anything they didn't understand. Not a lot has changed, I'd say.

This. Most of them still don't have a clue about women's lives, issues and experiences.

Men jealous and outraged at women they see as inferior, who are better than men. Narc rage!

Tale as old as time.

I think midwives were feared because the doctors (all male) had absolutely no chuffing clue about women's anatomy or what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy and labour. Instead of trying to learn from a mere woman, they instead wrote it all off as witchcraft.

Lets face it, most "witches" were the village wise-woman, someone with a knowledge of medicinal herbs and simple cures, a maker of salves, ointments, tinctures and herbal sleep and love potions.

Doctors didn't want to take on the patients that went to these women, because they were invariably female, or poor and wouldn't be able to pay for the stewed rats tails and bulls eyeballs that the doctors would prescribe. They didn't WANT those patients, but they didn't want anyone else treating them, either.

It all boils down to money, power and men's fear of anything they didn't understand. Not a lot has changed, I'd say.

^Isn't this part of the same pattern?
Misogynists take advantage of younger women and save their worst for the older women.^

Yes I think that's very true.

Thankyou for this post.
I never knew that midwives were disproportionately accused of being witches. Of course with their knowledge of women and the female processes it is not surprising they were treated with suspicion by men in power.
I suspect we lost a great deal of wisdom and knowledge in the process, not just for childbirth and child rearing but also medicine, farming techniques and food preparation for the family.

Elders and the younger wise women had their path of transmitting their knowledge to a younger generation blocked.through fear of being accused.

It is hard to offer advice to a young mum for fear of being interfering/out of date/wrong, so we withdraw from speaking out.
Isn't this part of the same pattern?
Misogynists take advantage of younger women and save their worst for the older women.

I’ve just registered so I could delurk on another thread. I’m with the OP on this, hence my choice of user name.

What astounds me - or maybe it shouldn’t - is that witch hunts spanned 300 years.

Excellent piece, OP.

Thank you for posting it - it's reminded me of something I wrote years ago about 'hysteria' and womb-theory in the ancient world. I wonder if that would be a heresy at Goldsmiths today??

Agree wholeheartedly. Women are feared. Why? Clearly we are way more powerful than we realise, hence the campaigns to shut us up and imprison us in chains. I'm told, continually, that I'm "bossy". That I'm "too opinionated". That i get myself in a tizzy over things that don't matter. They do matter. They may not affect me, directly, but they matter. All these phrases are just scolds bridles in different form. Its always men who use them.

It's bizarre how acceptable this seems to be. This thread on pink news shocked me.