JF> There's also a new book out describing the witch-hunts
JF> of the dark ages as a tool used by the patriarchal
JF> religious establishment to supress women.
JF>
JF> Feminist Revisionism at its worst.

Not revisionistic in the slightest.

The historians who have tracked the some half-million cases that we CAN track at this late date, of those who were executed during the Burnings, have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of those executed for "witchcraft" (as opposed to Christian heresy) were, in fact, women who weren't under the daily control of some man, and who dared to own and directly control small amounts of property in such a state. Women who were property-less (owned no land) weren't a threat and therefore were usually left alone; women who owned LARGE amounts of property were merely forced to either marry or surrender the lands to their nearest male relative by purely State operations, before the women in question could parlay their holdings into political power by arming their vassals.

The women burned for "witchcraft" usually owned only either an urban home and business, or a rural family farm. Not enough to make them a direct State threat, but enough to permit them to make a living without having to tender obedience to any male. That's why the Church got involved -- self- determination for women was totally anathema to the Jesus cults of those days, just as it is still for said cults today.

Further, the MEN who were executed for "witchcraft" in those days were mostly men who were guilty of other non-crimes, such as refusing to beat their spouses with clubs, or using contraception and enjoying sex for its own sake, or having a male lover, or raising daughters top think for themselves.

And the vast majority of those executed WERE women -- a fact which establishes and demonstrates the Feminists' assertion ALONE, without need for any other supporting facts -- which still exist nevertheless.

Go Back