Membership was contractual, that is, a
member signed an actual contract which limited her
obligations to the cult to a specific number of years,
at the end of which she was free to terminate allegiance.
Most often the Devil “promised her Mony, and that she
would live gallantly and have the pleasure of the
World… ” The neophyte’s debts probably were paid
and she no doubt also learned the secrets of medicine,
drugs, telepathy, and simple sanitation, which would
have considerably improved all aspects of her earthly
existence.

Andrea Dworkin

Oh god the chapter on the “old religion” is SO fucking funny, “tiny neolithic people” “secrets of telepathy”

Oh my god.

The socioreligious organization of the fairy culture
was matriarchal and probably polyandrous. The fairy
culture was still extant in England as late as the 17th
century when even the pagan beliefs of the early witches
had degenerated into the Christian parody which we
associate with Satanism. The Christians rightly recognized
the fairies as ancient, original sorcerers, but
the Witches wrongly saw their whole culture as an expression o f the
demonic. There was communication between the fairies
and the pagan women, and any evidence that a woman
had visited the fairies was considered sure proof that
she was a witch.

Andrea Dworkin 

Oh my god.  Oh my god.  Oh my god.  Is she fucking serious?  

Is she writing a sociological treatise on a fucking fantasy novel?  This is like bad fanfic about history.

Oh my god.

Andrea Dworkin’s Analysis Of Witch Hunts Is Bad and Badly Researched.

The medieval
Church did not believe that cleanliness was next
to godliness. On the contrary, between the temptations
of the flesh and the Kingdom of Heaven, a layer of dirt,
lice, and vermin was supposed to afford protection and
to ensure virtue. Since the flesh was by definition sinful,
it was not to be uncovered, washed, or treated for those
diseases which were God’s punishment in the first place
— hence the Church’s hostility to the practice of medicine
and to the search for medical knowledge. Abetted
by this medieval predilection for filth and shame, successive
epidemics of leprosy, epileptic convulsions, and plague decimated the population o-f Europe regularly.
The Black Death is thought to have killed 25
percent o f the entire population o f Europe; two-thirds
to one-half o f the population o f France died; in some
towns every living person died; in London it is estimated
that one person in ten survived:

So this is wrong because: The church was not hostile to the practice of medicine (actually establishing hospitals and doing most of the medicining, and yes they did encourage prayer but they did other stuff too, and were the ones maintaining the store of classical knowledge cause they were the only classical institution fucking left), and bathing was actually common up UNTIL the plague struck and many baths had to be closed (Communal baths were a great place for a disease to spread) and one of the reasons the plague swept through was the fact that Europe was going through a mini ice age resulting in people immunocompromised from cold and hunger.

Hunger and misery, the serf’s constant companions,
may well have induced the kinds o f hallucinations and
hysteria which profound ignorance translated as demonic
possession. Disease, social chaos, peasant insurrections,
outbreaks o f dancing mania (tarantism)
with its accompanying mass flagellation — the Church
had to explain these obvious evils. What kind o f Shepherd
was this whose flock was so cruelly and regularly
set upon? Surely the hell-fires and eternal damnation
which were vivid in the Christian imagination were
modeled on daily experience, on real earth-lived life.
The Christian notion of the nature of the Devil
underwent as many transformations as the snake has
skins. In this evolution, natural selection played a determining
role as the Church bred into its conception those
deities best suited to its particular brand o f dualistic
theology. It is a cultural constant that the gods o f one
religion become the devils o f the next, and the Church,
intolerant o f deviation in this as in all other areas,

vilified the gods of those pagan religions which threatened
Catholic supremacy in Europe until at least the
15th century. The pagan religions were not monotheistic
and their pantheons were scarcely conservative
in number. The Church had a slew of deities to
dispatch and would have done so speedily had not the
old gods their faithful adherents who clung to the old
practices, who had local power, who had to be pacified.
Accordingly, the Church did a kind of roulette and sent
some gods to heaven (canonizing them) and others to
hell (damning them). Especially in southern Europe the
local deities, formerly housed on Olympus, were allowed
to continue their traditional vocations of healing the
sick and protecting the traveler. The Church often
transformed the names of the gods —so as not to be
embarrassed, no doubt. Apollo, for instance, became
St. Apollinaris; Cupid became St. Valentine. The pagan
gods were also allowed to retain their favorite haunts —
shrines, trees, wells, burial grounds, now newly decorated
with a cross.
But in northern Europe the old gods did not fare
as well. The peoples of northern Europe were temperamentally
and culturally quite different from the Latin
Christians, and their religions centered around animal
totemism and fertility rites. The “heathens” adhered
to a primitive animism. They worshiped nature (archenemy
of the Church), which was manifest in spirits
who inhabited stones, rivers, and trees. In the paleolithic
hunting stage, they were concerned with magical
control of animals. In the later neolithic agricultural
stage, fertility practices to ensure the food supply
predominated.

  Also no there was no witch cult, witches were not pagan survivals, and why second wavers love valorizing pre-Christian religions I DO NOT KNOW, Roman women?  Not treated that well.  Read the Rape Of Lucretia, look at some goddamn history.

T o deal with the increasing tide o f witchcraft and
in conformity with the Pope’s orders, Sprenger and
Kramer collaborated on the Malleus Maleficarum. “

Also the Church condemned the Malleus Maleficarum, most of the persecution was committed via mass hysteria and landed gentry.

Also do not get on me with that goddess crap

Anthropologists now believe that man’s first representation
o f any anthropomorphic deity is that o f a
horned figure who wears a stag’s head and is apparently
dancing.

That figure is to be found in a cavern in Arriege.
Early religions actively worshiped animals, and
in particular animals which symbolized male fertility—the
bull, goat, or stag. Ecstatic dancing, feasts,
sacrifice o f the god or his representative (human or animal)
were parts o f the rites. The magician-priest-shaman
became the earthly incarnation o f the god-animal and
apparently dressed in the skins o f the sacred animal
(even the Pharaoh o f Egypt had an animal tail attached
to his girdle)

WRONG  WRONGITY WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The nobility, when
not out butchering, enforced that most curious of
customs, the jus primae noctis, which legitimated the rape
of newly wed peasant women.

Nope  

“It is hard to arrive at a figure
for the whole of the Continent and the British Isles,
but the most responsible estimate would seem to be
9 million. It may well, some authorities contend, have
been more. Nine million seems almost moderate when
one realizes that The Blessed Reichhelm of Schongan at
the end of the 13th century computed the number of
the Devil-driven to be 1,758,064,176. A conservative,
Jean Weir, physician to the Duke of Cleves, estimated
the number to be only 7,409,127

Not that many people were killed, given the population of Europe at the time that would have been impossible

It was especially as midwives that these learned
women offended the Church, for, as Sprenger and
Kramer wrote, “No one does more harm to the Catholic
Faith than mid wives. ” 27 The Catholic objection to abortion
centered specifically on the biblical curse which
made childbearing a painful punishment —it did not
have to do with the “right to life” of the unborn fetus.
It was also said that midwives were able to remove labor
pains from the woman and transfer those pains to her
husband—clearly in violation of divine injunction and
intention both

Nope, they weren’t after midwives

“The ratio of women to
men executed has been variously estimated at 20 to 1
and 100 to 1. Witchcraft was a woman’s crime.

And although most women were targeted witch hysteria was not exclusively used against women and that ratio is wrong as fuck.

Nor was it simply an expression of misogyny

And again Dworkin is ahistorical.

Men, of course, like a woman who “takes care of
herself. ” The male response to the woman who is madeup
and bound is a learned fetish, societal in its dimensions.
One need only refer to the male idealization of
the bound foot and say that the same dynamic is operating
here. Romance based on role differentiation, superiority
based on a culturally determined and rigidly enforced
inferiority, shame and guilt and fear of women
and sex itself: all necessitate the perpetuation of these
oppressive grooming imperatives.
The meaning of this analysis of the romantic ethos
surely is clear. A first step in the process of liberation
(women from their oppression, men from the unfreedom
of their fetishism) is the radical redefining of the
relationship between women and their bodies. The
body must be freed, liberated, quite literally: from paint
and girdles and all varieties of crap. Women must stop
mutilating their bodies and start living in them. Perhaps
the notion of beauty which will then organically
emerge will be truly democratic and demonstrate a
respect for human life in its infinite, and most honorable,
variety
“ – Andrea Dworkin

For most of human history in most societies, men did as much beauty labor as women and often more.  Girdles and makeup were for both men and women.  Look at most of fucking history, everybody fucking wore fucking makeup and did their fucking hair.  Modern dudes are a weird lazy shitty exception.

Not to mention the CONSTANT criticism of women who look “unnatural” or who are “deceptive”.  Plastic surgery, makeup, all these things are things men want made invisible, a perfection that does not show the labor involved (yet another case of men insisting on women’s labor not being labor) and appears to have occurred naturally, so men don’t have to think about the work involved, in fact many men believe makeup is deceptive and should be abolished so that we can be graded like livestock.

Refusing to regard it as productive labor (and part of humanity, because we ALL FUCKING ADORN OURSELVES) obscures the fact that as with emotional labor women are performing a socially necessary function that men do not do their fair share of, while men insist that women hide the fact that his labor exists/is laboe

Pain is an essential part of the grooming process,
and that is not accidental. Plucking the eyebrows,
shaving under the arms, wearing a girdle, learning to
walk in high-heeled shoes, having one’s nose fixed,
straightening or curling one’s hair —these things hurt.

Andrea Dworkin.

Ok I’m just wondering WTF she was doing that shaving her underarms and straightening/curling her hair hurt

Dworkin Is Factually Wrong AGAIN

Claiming that a standard of feminine beauty based upon a body where very little is left unaltered is the beauty standard resulting from a bourgeois democracy (because beauty is ‘democratized’ so anyone can sort of kind of maybe attain it with enough work) is SO AHISTORICAL, like ancient Egypt?  Plastic surgery, fuck ton of makeup, shaving everything, perfumed cones on your wig monarchy/theocracy.  France pre-revolution, a monarchy, fuck ton of makeup, giant fake hair, corsetry, after the revolution?  Much less fake hair and makeup.  I can cite SO many examples of body modification in precapitalist/monarchical societies it’d make your damned head spin.  Victorian era, very much a bourgeois democracy, yes corsetry and fake hair (though that was disapproved of) but no makeup allowed for respectable ladies, no body shaving, and it was considered a sign of being bad and sinful if you were an ugly woman because “goodness makes women beautiful” *cue me punching something*.

Ultimately Dworkin is writing from her time, and from her vantage point without bothering to fact check much, and without challenging her own assumptions. She’s a bourgeois child of the new left and I cannot find it in myself to like her, or commend her intellectual laziness