I've watched the first two parts, and most of this is just made up. I find it quite offensive that people do make this sort of stuff up. We do know quite a lot about what happened to women in the past, and that is important. It is also rather disrespectful to women in non-European contemporary cultures to attempt to make out that their culture is some kind of stand in for culture in Europe half a century ago, when there really is almost no relationship between the two.
It is just bizarre to make out that Christianity was new or relatively unknown in Europe in 1132. That is 400 years after some people in England starting writing dates based on AD - years after the birth of Christ. Are we meant to pretend the Lindisfarne Gospels were not written 400 years earlier, or that there hadn't been Christian communities in Britain for hundreds of years prior to those Gospels? Are we pretending that Christianity was not mainstream among the Romans by the time they left Britain?
Religion before the arrival of Christianity is very interesting, but you have to start by being clear about when that was - the PreRoman Iron Age. You can't make it 1,000 years later and place it within an entirely different culture - one that is an emerging market economy with nations, as opposed to a subsistence based tribal society. That is just as extreme as making out that now is just like 1132.
I also dislike women providing medical treatment being treated as something that is primarily religious. It is primarily scientific, regardless of what era it happens in. It is largely based on an understanding of the natural world, why over-emphasise the supernatural aspects of it? Yes, women were persecuted under a religious justification; it doesn't mean what they were doing was exceptionally religious. Galileo was persecuted for religious reasons, but we refer to him as a scientist. What makes it so different if the person being persecuted is a female midwife?