I would strongly disagree with the idea that the crackdown on idolatry was patriarchal oppression.
The only point of evidence in Tanakh that we could have for this is the Witch of Ein-Dor and correlating that to Yoshiyahu’s clearing away of necromancers and mediums (literally ghosts and familiar spirits).
However, I disagree for the following reasons:
The law of Deuteronomy does not distinguish gender in its prohibitions and its designators are gender neutral
Exodus specifies a sorceress or witch but later interpretations expand to mean sorcery in general
The witch of ein-dor story may come from the hand of deuteronomic editing with a specific agenda to delegitimize Shaul (since there was heavy rivalry between Shaul supporters and David supporters seen throughout Tanakh).
Even if we were to take it at face value, it says Shaul forbid the practice of those “inquiring of ghosts and all-knowing ones” through cutting them off. Nothing says that these people were predominantly women. We only see one example: the Witch of Ein-Dor and she may not have been punished because according to the midrash, she was Shaul’s aunt: mother of Shaul’s paternal cousin, Avner.
There is nothing in the text at the time that says these necromancers and mediums were disproportionately women even if the Talmud says, “most women are familiar with witchcraft” (Sanhedrin 67a:19); note however that the rabbis and even the Tanakh has varying and contradictory opinions on women with certain commentary putting them on a higher spiritual level.
Even if one were to consider witchcraft as a sub-branch of idolatry, they still don’t seem to be a majority of the people persecuted for idolatrous practices.
As seen in the Eliyahu story, most of the leaders on the ground were men. Eliyahu says “The prophets see 450 men (אִישׁ).” (Kings I 18:22).
Hoshea (considered one of the earlier prophetic books after the split) sees Hashem complain against worship of Baal, a rival storm deity (who is by far the most commonly complained about).
Yirimyahu (who instructed them men) and Chuldah (who instructed the women) fought against male false prophets like Hananiah.
Most of the complaints of idolatry seem to be either gender neutral or led by men. Notably, any women practicing idolatry aside from Maacah (the Queen Mother) seem to be swept into the general populace instead of being distinguished as “priestesses of Baal/Asherah” etc.
Within the Tanakh’s broader context, the society was patriarchal to begin with. This was typical for the surrounding societies of the region. In Mesopotamia, some have argued that male deities being valued over female ones led to patriarchy, but more likely worship practices followed a change in values. Notably, the Mesopotamian deity Inanna was worshipped more in her capacity of war instead of love, but she was still worshipped widely. It seemed more like a feedback loop reinforced with the Code of Hammurabi.
I have not read The Hebrew Priestess or The Red Tent, but I have read their summaries, tv tropes (for the Red Tent), and Wikipedia on the Kohenet movement
The Red Tent is a historical fiction modern midrash that reframes Dinah and Shechem’s story as a consensual forbidden love and that women coming of age with their periods were confined to a menstruation tent (ie the red tent).
Dinah was raped. The Hebrew words describing her trauma are וַיִּקח, ויִּשְׁכּב, and וַיְעַנֶּה. There are some sources who claim Shechem and Dinah fell in love consensually and/or that it was seduction, which is probably what The Red Tent based itself on.
However, the same words are used in cases of unambiguous rape as pointed out by Ramban in Deuteronomy and the Concubine of Giveah. Ramban tended to be more sympathetic to women in his Torah commentaries compared to other rabbinic commentaries. There is some scholarship that says that the Torah was edited to include the rape and to be anti-convert. I disagree with their reasoning however because it relies on misconceptions of rape (that rapists cannot feel “love” towards their victims). I should note that it is shameful that many rabbis victim-blamed Dinah for what happened to her.
The Red Tent’s author has acknowledged multiple times that there’s no evidence for the ancient Israelites to have used a menstrual tent even if other pre modern cultures did. If anything we see Rachel pretty integrated with everyone else if we were to take her statement about the way of women partially as truth.
The teraphim were not used for the “Ritual of Opening” to Inanna to break a girl’s hymen. Mesopotamia did not seem physical tests of virginity, but virginity was still considered important in the legal code. As far as the Jewish sources go, teraphim were objects or astrological tables used for divining the future not for penetration.
The book seems to separate Jewish women into 13 different archetypes: maiden, mother, matriarch/queen, midwife, wise woman, mourning women, prophetess, shrine keeper, witch/shamanness, seeker, lover, fool, and weaver. However, I have problems with this approach:
1. It seems to draw on examples throughout time even though I mentioned before that there were clear changes to women’s status and our status as in our land or not. You can’t argue that this is like how it was in the Tanakh era if you are drawing from non Tanakh sources (e.g. the mother of Abaye).
2. There is no distinction between righteous and non-righteous.
For instance it cites Vashti as an example of the queen/matriarch archetype for Jewish women even though 1) Vashti wasn’t Jewish and 2) Vashti was an antisemite who at the very least did not want the temple rebuilt (Ester Midrash) or at the very worst, horrifically abused her Jewish handmaids (Babylonian Talmud). They also cite Maacah as an inspiration even though she was Avshalom’s granddaughter (Avshalom raped his father’s concubines) and straight up worshipped Asherah (which they saw as righteous defiance).
3. Some of the women used as a examples are very poorly characterized: the wise woman of [blank] since they are relatively minor characters in the narrative.
4. It seems to flatten anthropomorphism’s metaphors into actual examples of Jewish women for archetypes: a servant of women, wisdom from the book of psalms.
5. It flattens women’s roles in ancient Israel to various archetypes when most likely women may have filled several roles all at once.
6. It argues that prophetesses were co-opted by the patriarchy and that the Talmud is ambivalent towards them.
The Talmud is ambivalent to pretty much everybody because many rabbis were involved.
Eli is listed as a prophet even though the Talmud generally seems to dislike Eli (Rav Huna bar Yehoshua said Rav Benai Ben Abaye’s opinion on a woman’s inheritance was unsound because Rav Benai came from the house of Eli).
For ambivalent figures like Shaul and Pinchad, the Talmud explicitly divides along sharp lines of critique vs high praise dependent on the rabbi.
The Talmud explicitly criticizes Yoshiyahu for being an idiot in going to war and not consulting with Yirimyahu. Judaism recognized that our greatest figures also made great mistakes. Judaism also recognizes that even the unrighteous can have moments of righteousness like how Yizevel performed acts of kindness with her feet and hands with mourning and brides (Pikrei deRabbi Eliezer 17:5).
The book seems to exploit poor knowledge of Tanakh especially post-Torah among Jews to argue for avodah zarah. It ignores that Hashem said multiple times that worshipping Asherah is detestable. It doesn’t care that Asherah worship was associated with corpse desecration and invaders in Tanakh. It does a disservice to those actually wanting to understand the Tanakh and its context.
