In reactions to this movement that is discussed, I personally could not help but think a little cynically. I don’t know, maybe I have just had to read a lot of papers in anthropology lately having to do with feminism, I am not really sure. When it is said that the “ordinary” woman is both a goddess and a witch, I just found it amusing. The reason I think this is so is because by trying to reclaim this stigma of a witch as something seen as positive and powerful, I think that is just like trying to re-create the idea of a zombie within our minds. Zombies are usually depicted in books as dead, scary people found walking around haunting graveyards. In this same sense, I think that is what Rountree is doing within this article.I understand her message and what she is conveying. I know that she is not trying to claim any of this to be correct or incorrect. However, I find this depiction to be quite lofty. Just like she states in the beginning of her article, the “image of ‘witch’ incorporate[s] both the hideous hag and the irresistible seductress,” it says that women can self-identify with both witch and goddess. Which, in ways, I guess I can agree. Deception I think is something that is present within both the "witch" and "goddess" representation, which at times I know that I can relate to.
I found interesting this idea of the “feminist witch.” It all just seems a little too extreme to me. In order to be an independent woman, seeking affinity and power, I do not think one has to go the extremity to be labeled a feminist witch. Even though it is a movement of a subculture in itself, when she states the definition of “witch” it was a woman “who challenges patriarchal control and claims independent knowledge and power.” That sounds like the definition of a feminist to me.
This idea of re-creating the image of a witch from the past just seems interesting to me I guess. I am not condemning the idea nor condoning it, rather, I am just saying that I think it sounds a little silly. But hey, each to their own I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you about re-creating the image of the witch from the past. It seems kind of pointless if you ask me, its not like any of the families of the women who were persecuted are still alive today, couldn’t they accomplish the same aim by writing a book about how wrong everyone was back then? I also think that calling themselves witches and actually doing all these rituals (whether for show or not) makes these women seem scarier and crazier than they should be, if they are trying to make this movement appeal to a larger group of women.
You raised a really good point with this blog. I thought it was really interesting how you brought up the point of telling the difference between a feminist and a feministic witch. I guess it's kind of hard to tell the differences and draw a line between the two. Anyway, I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for the interesting read!
Stephanie-
I really enjoyed reading your post! You brought up some really good points. I too felt that the idea of the “feminist witch” was a little extreme. I don’t think people need a label like that in order to promote change and seek power. Also, the whole idea of recreating the image of a witch does sound silly to me too. I just don’t see people really being able to do so.
-Michelle
Post a Comment