Unfortunately I read a library copy of the book before I bought my computer and therefore have no summary of it. Without mention of a tradition of oppression of women, the implication for the sixteenth century is that of course would be attacked-and that it must somehow have been their fault. This is what historians conclude when they have no awareness of traditional misogyny or traditional oppression of women. Women accusers often acted at the behest of their menfolk, as part of a family strategy of accusation. That torture and execution took place before large crowds shows not only the blood-thirst of the age but even more the desire of church and state, local and national, to control their citizens through intimidation.
Survivors lead shattered lives, exiled from homes, reputations destroyed, unable to earn a living.
Most accused men where related to women who were previously convicted of sorcery, as husbands, sons, or grandsons. Often the accused was the village healer, dispenser of folk remedies, and hence a powerful and respected person. They were perceived as people who had the power to cure and also had the power to kill. The accused were women who spoke out, held to their convictions, were independent of mind and spirit, or refused to be put down, and of course, older women - women over age 50. The benefits to accuser include destruction a woman reputation, her banishishment, or her death, perhaps even gain part of her property.