OK, A+ in writing academic drivel. F in real ideas. To wit:
The advent of class divisions, the acquisition of wealth and power, and the ownership of property fed a movement toward patriarchal governing
>Bull->-bleeped-<-. I got some new news, turns out that the Roman, Greek, and other pre-Middle Age civilizations had "Class," worked to acquire wealth and power (they formed empires, that's a hint), they were all about property, and I don't see them as anything other than a patriarchal rule. Quick name one famous female Roman head of state. Not only that, its way Eurocentric, is this pattern found in other parts of the world, China, Africa, Native American cultures? Yup. Sure is.
Moreover, I think that recent evidence and scholarship demonstrates that it was the rise of the military class that really brought all this on, long before the Middle Ages. So that it was the need for a military class that ultimately became threatened by the existence of female and transgender spiritual leaders. Classic 'cart before the horse' thinking. Speaking of horses, its the horse (in combination with the invention of the stirrup) that had a lot to do with creating the Feudalism of the Middle Ages . The need to provide for horses (Ever hear the phrase "Eats like a horse" turns out, they eat a lot) ready for combat required new methods of agriculture, and new crops.
It was for this reason that patriarchal religions, which reached their epitome with the Roman Catholic Church, felt that they had to stamp out transgender people (and also gay / lesbian people, who were often thought of as mixed-gender of a sort in early societies) and demonize their legacy
While its true that the Roman Catholic Church is a model patriarchal organization, its hardly the epitome. Guess she has never checked out Islam eh? And its not the gender role that the RCC was out to get, it was the sex deal. Whatever problem the RCC has with gender is dwarfed by its sexual hangups. And its the attempt to quash the sexuality of the Greek and Roman societies that really brings this down.
The writer has a point to make, and cherry picks the facts to suit it. Had she done real research the facts might well have taken the writer to a very different conclusion.
