This article talked about witchcraft and why women were singled out as the perpetrators of bewitchments. I feel that this questioned was not really answered. I thought this article did not really answer the gender question. However, one thing that I found interesting was that witchcraft was not sex-specific but was sex-related. One reviewer said of Hester's book, "it will offend male historians with its global attack on the male supremacist society and the male sexuality, which are seen as a means of controlling women sexually in the interest of men." My question then, is why did men in this society at this time in history think that they needed women to be witches in order to control them sexually? I just do not understand why this would happen, because in the background information of this paper it makes it seem like this is not the case and women choose to become a witch. Although, it did not say that men were completely out of the picture as witches themselves. Levack makes this point very clear by saying, "there's nothing in the definition of a witch that excludes male." Why was this hardly ever mentioned and why weren't more men persecuted for being witches? Does this have anything with them being the dominant sex? Another thing that I found interesting in this article was that in most gendered societies people could not imagine a witch that was not either male or female. Therefore, this paper goes on to say that the making of the witch was through social structure and women had certain connections within the community that determined whether an incidental accusation of a witch would be made. In these early modern European societies witchcraft was learned early as a child. At the end of the article it said, "when one became a witch it corrupted her position as a neighbor and role as the giver of life, and the mere possibility of losing her gender identity compelled her to comply with patriarchal communal norms of womanhood, a transgression of which made it more probable to incite an accusation of witchcraft." This quote makes this article interesting and makes me wonder why women felt they had to become witches as a way to overcome patriarchy. However, no one seems to remember that there were male witches too.
The author of this article Willem de Blécourt seeks to discover the answer to the following question: “Why were women singled out as the perpetrators of bewitchments, both in everyday life and in criminal trials?” In his consideration of the implications of witchcraft as a gendered subject, he provides an analysis of the following quotation from Christina Larner, the author of multiple books on witchcraft: “Witchcraft was not sex-specific but it was sex-related.” I was amazed to read that there is a distinction between “witchcraft scholars” and “feminist witchcraft theorists.” That the feminist witchcraft scholars are called theorists points to the fact that their views are not widely accepted within their discipline. Interestingly, the majority of witchcraft research relies upon interpretation rather than historical evidence. Those women who were deemed witches were considered witches because they did not “adhere to the social norms of femininity.” As Christina Larner put it, “witch-hunting…is the hunting of women who do not fulfill the male view of how women ought to conduct themselves.” Some academics even assert that when a woman became a witch, she lost her womanness. Hence, “the mere possibility of losing her gender identity compelled her to comply with patriarchal communal norms of womanhood.” It seems to me that witch hunting came about as a response to the patriarchal society in which it developed. However, can it really be the case that countless women were killed simply to further male hegemony? Since witchcraft was believed to be hereditary, men were sometimes persecuted alongside the women in their lives. As a result, witchcraft as the agenda of patriarchy does not seem to make sense. In addition, even when men were accused of being witches, they were not persecuted to the extent that women were. How can we account for this difference? Finally, the author notes that women often accused other women of being witches because they had been tricked into supporting “patriarchal norms.” Does this not fit well with Daly’s claim that women are perpetuating patriarchy?
I am impressed with de Blecort's desire for objectivity and maturity in searching out an answer to his gendered witchcraft question. Understanding patriarchy as as a "let's denigrate women for our own gain" club in which all men are evil card carrying members is an oversimplification, and de Blecort understand this (as do, he says, many feminist historians). De Blecort's conclusions on pages 303 and 304 suggest a nuanced understanding of the perpetuation of witchcraft. Communalism vs. individualism, children growing up in a "accuse/blame others" witchcraft mindset, and the "female space" all play into his understanding of witchcraft and it's often gendered nature.
One question I am left with concerns the conditions for a witchcraft environment. What led up the birth of the witchcraft phenomena? What perpetuated it (which I think de Blecort helped answer)? And what caused it's demise?
The was really interesting because I did not know a whole lot about the making of the female witch. I never thought too much about it as to why it was always females being prosecuted for witchcraft, but this article brought some new information to my attention. The first thing that I found interesting because I did not know about it is slander trials. These were trials that people who were accused of witchcraft would use to try to clear their name and to get back the honor they had lost. A question I have for these slander trials was how often did they actually work? It seems like back then a trial did not really do an accused much good. The second thing that I found interesting was when the article looked at whether witchcraft could be separated from a gendered crime. The question the article looked at was whether witch hunting was also woman hunting. It seems like from what is known and written about that it may be this way. Actually though, men were likely to be suspects in witch trials. How often did witch hunting turn up with men as the suspects? Another idea of the article that caught my eye was when it talked about women who were suspected of witchcraft were more than likely due to other women accusing them. I wonder why though women would be blaming other women? Is this kind of like how if a woman makes it to a higher position in her job that is usually held by men and how they will not help other women attain that same position? The last thing that I wondered after reading this article was how this all tied back to religion?
I, too, had never put much thought into this topic. I thought the topic of the article was interesting, but didn't really like de Blecort's writing style. Nevertheless, I was enthused to read that "Witchcraft was not sex-specific but sex-related." However, as de Blecort continues he claims that this, like much of Larner's statements, are taken out of context. I also thought the question, "Is witch hunting woman hunting?" an extremely interesting question. And was it a specific type of woman that is hunted? (Not a good wife, neighbor, etc.) As de Blecort's article progresses I got the assumption that women "became" witches because they did not conform to the patriarchal norms of the society in which they were living. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. It's an interesting thought, though. I, too, wonder what connection this has to religion? Overall, this multifaceted topic is very appealing and I'm glad someone is talking about it.
I guess the biggest concern I have with reading this article was that I was very confused on what sieve and shears are. Is there anyway that maybe during class you could show us an example of one or describe it a little more in detail than the article did? Other than that I thought that this article was very interesting. It brought in some new factors that I had never thought about that would even apply to witches or the theory behind witches. People would accuse other of being witches because they were angry at them or they wanted some type of revenge. And for some reason most of the time the people that were accused most often were women. And some how the women would have a greater chance of being a witch because of the turning of a machine? How crazy can some of these people get? Then the fact that witches are generally women but sometimes men were considered to be witches too was a surprise to me. People were still tried for being witches but the article describes that most of them weren't tortured if they were convicted of being a witch.
I felt this reading was very interesting because I had never really thought much about this topic. I really haven't known much about the idea of witchcraft and this brought out ideas I had never even really heard of. I was also confused as to what sieve and shears are. That is something I have not heard of before and think examples would be good to see, if possible. One idea that really struck me as interesting was the slander trials. This is when the people accused of being a witch would try to fight the accusation and get their name cleared. If there are two roles of women, kind mother or horrible witch, what would the roles for men have been? Women were obviously seen more within the accusations of witches, while men were seen accused but not as often.
I also dont know what a sieve and shears are but did find it interesting (and kinda funny) that all but three of the towns women could have been concidered witches by it. Also I hadnt ever really thought about it untill know but the idea of witches being women is still around today. Now with Halloween approching witch costumes are everywhere but i dont think i've ever seen one mad for a man. Is that because we still hold that idea or just because from the historical side it was usually a woman who was accused?
i, thirdly, do not understand exactly what a sieve and shears are. after thinking about it, i never have associated a witch with a man before. ive only ever seen it in movies or in books that a witch is a woman, and a man would be a wizard..or something of that sort. but then this reminded me of the salem witch trials, and (according to the play) men were also accused of witchcraft? so i wonder why then we dont seem to let it be widely known that males were/could be witches? also, didnt fully understand the concept of witch hunting being woman hunting? why would people want to hunt women? i guess i didnt comprehend that part correctly…as for women accusing other women of being witches…this is almost like in todays society where we dont like other women for being skinnier, prettier, etc so we label them with derogatory names, or make fun of them…and so on
Yeah, what is exactly a sieve and shears? Didn't the town people think that maybe it was wrong when only 3 women showed not to be able to be bewitched? And my other question is did they try it on men? I would be curious to know how many men it said could be bewitched or if the contraption was bias? Also, on another note, there are warlock costumes for men, i've seen them. I think our culture just believes that being a witch is female and a male is a warlock-thus, with the 'witch' trials why wouldn't females be singled out? I also found the slander trials interesting. I wonder how hard it was to find evidence for yourself to prove that you were not a witch? What kind of evidence would a person have to come up with?
What i thought was the most beneficial for me when i was reading this is the comparison of the women being either the kind mother or the horrible witch. I found this very interesting, because most the time when i think of more historical society i think i the sweet stay at home mom that cooked and cleaned. I don't even think about a women who would go out and buy their own land and not get married. I don't really know where that stereotype comes from. That was another big issue was the stereotype of women. When they broke the mold of what women should be according to that society they just accused her and killed her. The same went for the men if they broke the mold they were killed. This really shows how far people were willing to go to keep the things how they are.
This article is about witchcraft and women. At the beginning, the author talk about a test that early shepherd did to search for witch. It said that all the women in the village are qualify as witches but didn’t say why, which is confusing. The article then talks about how women themselves accuse on other women and label them as witch because of patriarchy. “Patriarchy divides women, patriarchy functions so as to encourage women to enforce patriarchal norms against other women in order to strengthen their own precarious position in that order.” My question is why would women accuse on other women when they all are the victim of patriarchy?
This article was very eye opening. I have never really taking the time to thing about or even question why women are always accused of bewitching but men aren't. The article starts out with a story of two men going into a town with some sort of contraption that would turn about. The had said all the women of the towns name and if the contraption moved after they said a name that women was considered to be a witch. I think this is a very interesting way to start the article but I like it, right away you see that it is men that have fed the stereotype of only women being witches and not men. It was two men that came into the town and they only had the women line up while they said only their names, but no men had to line up and have their names said. The article goes on to talk about witch trails and how these took place mostly in European countries and in America. I just thought that was very interesting because patriarchy is very prevalent in these parts of the world. Also another thing that I really would like it know that was pointed out in this article is why do women single out other women? I know that in the article it said something about this but it confused me a little as to what they were trying to get at? At the end of the article it talked about the fact that women could be accused at anytime of being a witch and this could threaten her name in society and it she could possible lose her children so women would be more likely to follow the rules of a patriarchal society.
I never really thought of males as witches before reading this article. I have not had much background on witches, but what I have read about witches, the witches have always been female. The article raises an interesting point that the devil can be seen as symbolizing male supremacy over women which is how women are perceived as witches because they are no longer innocent, docile women of the community. What I interpreted from the article, though, was that men who were considered witches has female qualities such as the boy who told a lady that his son was “a nice boy” which is a comment usually attributed to female witches (299). So, were homosexual men being prosecuted as witches? At the same time, though, the article mentioned that often times men were burned at the stake or hung alongside their wives. The counter argument to this is that a homosexual man could have been married since homosexuality was not openly accepted by society at that time as illustrated by the burnings and hangings of men and women that deviated from the expectations of society. I also found it interesting that a witch’s spell was given in the form of a blessing such as the boy who said the woman’s son was “a nice boy. God bless him” and later the boy who had been “blessed” drowned. Why would this association between “blessing” and the devil exist? Did witches “bless” others as a way of mocking God? Or was it easier to discover who was a witch since “bless” was such a common term unlike telling someone that they are being put under spell?