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

[sakura]

[[

#at=380 youtube]]

ANd why women are feared to the extent that they are accused of witchcraft and killed for it

Dittany, you and I both objected to things because we feel they were anti-feminist. Yes, we disagree: you think I'm being sexist because I attack the work of feminists and I think the film is anti-feminist because it misrepresents women's lives in a dishonest way. But we do both think the problem is misogyny. So can we not accept that we're at least both trying?

I honestly think you do target those of us who have to do with academia. You repeatedly comment on what we do in highly insulting terms, blaming us and calling us misogynists. I don't see how you can think that's not personal. It makes debate very difficult, because you criticize us both for not knowing enough, and for expressing any knowledge we do have - which you see as some kind of showing off. It's not: it's just that we all have different areas of knowledge and interest and when you weren't posting on this t hread, we all managed to find some common ground to talk about things.

Dittany, you and I both objected to things because we feel they were anti-feminist. Yes, we disagree: you think I'm being sexist because I attack the work of feminists and I think the film is anti-feminist because it misrepresents women's lives in a dishonest way. But we do both think the problem is misogyny. So can we not accept that we're at least both trying?

I honestly think you do target those of us who have to do with academia. You repeatedly comment on what we do in highly insulting terms, blaming us and calling us misogynists. I don't see how you can think that's not personal. It makes debate very difficult, because you criticize us both for not knowing enough, and for expressing any knowledge we do have - which you see as some kind of showing off. It's not: it's just that we all have different areas of knowledge and interest and when you weren't posting on this t hread, we all managed to find some common ground to talk about things.

Excuse the double-post.

Sakura's OP was about why women were feared so much that they were murdered for it, and we have discussed that, but not really come up with an explanation for that fear. We've talked about association with the supernatural, with the body, with nature, with healing, with resource use, with religion, with challenge to the state and with age.

Now that is quite funny SAF. And I think we can all agree on that!

It does drive me nuts that some people - especially men - do that really crap thing of saying 'oh, but so-and-so is a woman, you must like her!', even when said woman is peddling the most extreme anti-feminist rubbish.

I'd still rather argue with a woman in a position of authority pedalling anti-feminist rubbish than a man doing the same.

Cross-post.

I agree, Milly, but do you think we will come up with an explanation for the fear? I think it would almost be worse if we could - it would suggest there was some kind of reason for it, whereas in fact I think one of the key things about misogyny is that it is Not Rational. It doesn't make sense, except in our patriarchial society where we're so conditioned to think it does.

I (maybe) think you can decide to not bother understanding someone's irrational fear if they are a tiny minority not really disturbing anyone, but if it takes hold over a whole society then you do have to unpick that pathway to irrationality. You have to get at the root cause to properly challenge it, or you just get bogged down in its manifestations forever.

I wonder if it might be guilt - at some point the scale tipped in men's favour as they started discriminating against women. And they felt guilty, and clamped down harder on women, and so on further and further? I want to think that could be an explanation because I want to think (can't prove) misogyny must have started with a small imbalance - it's not a natural starting-point imo, and it's certainly something self-reinforcing, that would have snowballed into a bigger and bigger force very fast.

Cross-posted again. Yes, see what you're saying Milly. But I think - I really hope - we're unpicking fear that's developed, that's been constructed, not that's natural. That's the problem to me with a 'root cause' - I don't think there can ever be a root cause to misogyny that's rational.

Sorry, I'm not saying this too well, I'm sleepy! What I'd worry about is, finding a 'reason' for misogyny that might look as if we're saying 'oh, ultimately it's not the patriarchy at fault, it's because x happened'. It sounds to me a bit like GB's 'accidental patriarchy' idea, which (no disrespect to GB), I don't buy.

SAF, yes I'd rather talk to Robert Jensen than Palin.

LRD, I think it kicked off with the invention of agriculture - that was the start of the imbalance, but haven't time to explain why right now.

SAF - me too re. the politics.

I agree about the reason, but if the original reason still exists, there are ways we could address the imbalance.

Must go.

Milly - ok, will have a think about that one - some time I would like to hear the explanation, too (but probably not now, I'm falling asleep). Thanks.

That makes a lot of sense SAF. Actually I think the idea of fathers 'owning' children is really problematic, because there's always the potential for that paranoia that the children might not genetically be 'theirs'.

Mind you, I don't know if that paranoia would properly be something caused by misogyny in the first place - it seems it must be, too, so maybe its a circular thing.

Makes sense.

Sorry, I am really interested but I think I must go to bed now - good talking to you. And I do think it is important to get to the bottom of this as to why the patriarchy happened and how we can pull it to pieces.

Agree! And I think that's just dovetailed very neatly with dittany's thread about the value of giving birth/bringing up children.

On that note ....

Goodnight!