Scan barcode
veleda_k's review against another edition
4.0
This is a fascinating book. Insightful and thorough, it's also very readible. Reading this has expanded not only my knowledge of the historical treatment of mental illness, but also my own understanding of what it means to be female and mad.
librarianonparade's review against another edition
5.0
By Victorian standards almost every modern woman would have been considered insane. That's a sobering thought, and this is a sobering read. There are many books out there on the history of mental illness and treatment, of psychology and psychiatry, asylums and chemical therapy, but so few focus on psychiatry as a female issue. And yet, as Elaine Showalter shows, for many years that is exactly what 'madness' was considered, a largely female malady, a result of the fragility of female minds. The standard representation was Ophelia, wispy and exquisite and beautiful, or Crazy Jane, wild and rebellious. Think of all those hysterical Victorian women with 'delicate nerves', lying down in darkened rooms for much of their lives, petted and sheltered, or rebellious young women locked away in homes and asylums.
Showalter's central argument is that the history of psychiatry has always been a male history, and the standards of female sanity and insanity have always been determined by societal and cultural norms of gendered moral behaviour. Whenever women deviated from these standards, devised and imposed upon them by a patriarchal society structured around the concept of masculine superiority, their behaviour was deemed aberrant, deviant, abnormal. Insane. Many such women were simply chafing against the stifling domesticity of their circumscribed lives, an impulse we can only too well understand today, and yet a hundred years or more ago this would have been deemed enough to call in the mad-doctors. To recognise and understand these women's frustrations and rebellions would have been to acknowledge their legitimacy, and this would have undermined the entire basis of gender roles in Victorian society, and indeed throughout history. Women were molded by nature to be confined to the domestic sphere, mothers and wives and daughters, and to rebel against this was to rebel against nature.
This is not to argue that all women confined to home-care or asylums were perfectly sane, victims of a blinkered, masculine-focused psychiatric profession intent on deliberately stifling the female voice. This would be unfair to both medical professions and their female patients. Many women did indeed suffer from mental imbalance, and again Showalter argues that much of this can be ascribed to unresolveable mental conflicts between their desire for freedom and independence of action and their culturally-conditioned beliefs in women's roles and place in society. She draws a parallel between these women and the shell-shock victims of the trenches, many of whom were suffering similar internal conflicts between their fear and desire to escape the horrors of war with their own cultural conditioning in masculine expectations of honour, courage, duty and sacrifice.
This was a truly fascinating read and a real eye-opener to just how much society and culture can influence what we might otherwise consider impartial standards of medicine. Deviations from the norm are considered aberrations, and yet who defines what is normal? Men, for much of history; indeed, even today. Women may not be quite so easily locked up as in the Victorian era, but our male-dominated society still largely defines the roles women are expected to perform in society. When women rebel against these roles or choose different paths for themselves, they are judged, criticised, shamed, degraded, ostracised. How far have we really come?
Showalter's central argument is that the history of psychiatry has always been a male history, and the standards of female sanity and insanity have always been determined by societal and cultural norms of gendered moral behaviour. Whenever women deviated from these standards, devised and imposed upon them by a patriarchal society structured around the concept of masculine superiority, their behaviour was deemed aberrant, deviant, abnormal. Insane. Many such women were simply chafing against the stifling domesticity of their circumscribed lives, an impulse we can only too well understand today, and yet a hundred years or more ago this would have been deemed enough to call in the mad-doctors. To recognise and understand these women's frustrations and rebellions would have been to acknowledge their legitimacy, and this would have undermined the entire basis of gender roles in Victorian society, and indeed throughout history. Women were molded by nature to be confined to the domestic sphere, mothers and wives and daughters, and to rebel against this was to rebel against nature.
This is not to argue that all women confined to home-care or asylums were perfectly sane, victims of a blinkered, masculine-focused psychiatric profession intent on deliberately stifling the female voice. This would be unfair to both medical professions and their female patients. Many women did indeed suffer from mental imbalance, and again Showalter argues that much of this can be ascribed to unresolveable mental conflicts between their desire for freedom and independence of action and their culturally-conditioned beliefs in women's roles and place in society. She draws a parallel between these women and the shell-shock victims of the trenches, many of whom were suffering similar internal conflicts between their fear and desire to escape the horrors of war with their own cultural conditioning in masculine expectations of honour, courage, duty and sacrifice.
This was a truly fascinating read and a real eye-opener to just how much society and culture can influence what we might otherwise consider impartial standards of medicine. Deviations from the norm are considered aberrations, and yet who defines what is normal? Men, for much of history; indeed, even today. Women may not be quite so easily locked up as in the Victorian era, but our male-dominated society still largely defines the roles women are expected to perform in society. When women rebel against these roles or choose different paths for themselves, they are judged, criticised, shamed, degraded, ostracised. How far have we really come?
emilyclairem's review against another edition
4.0
Showalter's writing is so engaging and her ideas are really compelling. Before reading, I thought I had the topic figured out - it seems quite evident if you've read anything about mental illness and feminism. But I was gladly mistaken - her arguments are very nuanced and focused and made me think about facets of the topic I hadn't previously. In addition, a historical scope like this can often make texts feel rushed, spending not enough time on each time period. This text never really felt like that. For my interests, I would have loved more time spent on the more recent years, but that would have made it unbalanced in treatment.
There were a couple things that nagged at me in the this text. First is that her analysis on any given topic seems to change based on the point she's trying to make in that she'll make two conflicting analyses of the same topic simply because she trying to make two different points in two different chapters. For example, in one of the first chapters, moral therapy is made out to be a positive alternative to the previous practice of simply locking away mentally ill people. In a later chapter, moral therapy is the judgmental, negative practice that was overcome by the triumphant, non-judgmental psychoanalysis. And still later, psychoanalysis results in false, judgmental ideas about the patient's sexual fantasies and activities. There doesn't seem to be any one clear overarching analysis that takes into accounts both the negatives and positives at the same time. This is implied, of course, so I wasn't completely put off by it, but I would have liked a clear articulation of these conflicts.
In the same vein, she would often ignore a thorough analysis of a source simply for the point of an argument. The most egregious example of this problem is when she writes of the 'lunatic balls' that people attended as a positive alternative to when people would previous pay to laugh at people in asylums; how these differ in any great respect is beyond me. She later criticizes those spectators, but I believe that that analysis should have occurred right away. And other things, like taking a medical superintendent's passage on how his modern asylum is so much better than the old dungeons at face value, when clearly he would be writing in order to influence people to believe he was truly better and was almost certainly exaggerating aspects of how bad it was before in order to do so. I also think she makes a lot of excuses for the cruelty of medical professionals in the past, which literally almost every author writing on this topic does so I guess it's not a huge issue, but I think it's so unnecessary and personally aggravating to read.
Other than those small issues, I really enjoyed this book. In particular, her focus on literature and her small survey of texts on mental illness is absolutely excellent and really relevant to me. And I LOVE how careful she is about not romanticizing/glorifying mental illness, warning against saying that it's a positive tool for female empowerment, while also not presenting it as a prison for women. She walks the line between those two extremes perfectly. She never uses it solely as a metaphor (as Gilbert and Gubar do), treats it as a very real experience for many, many women, but also doesn't close her self off to its metaphorical capabilities. It's really hard to walk those lines and she does so in a way that I hope I can emulate. Definitely a crucial text for this area, both in its information and approach.
There were a couple things that nagged at me in the this text. First is that her analysis on any given topic seems to change based on the point she's trying to make in that she'll make two conflicting analyses of the same topic simply because she trying to make two different points in two different chapters. For example, in one of the first chapters, moral therapy is made out to be a positive alternative to the previous practice of simply locking away mentally ill people. In a later chapter, moral therapy is the judgmental, negative practice that was overcome by the triumphant, non-judgmental psychoanalysis. And still later, psychoanalysis results in false, judgmental ideas about the patient's sexual fantasies and activities. There doesn't seem to be any one clear overarching analysis that takes into accounts both the negatives and positives at the same time. This is implied, of course, so I wasn't completely put off by it, but I would have liked a clear articulation of these conflicts.
In the same vein, she would often ignore a thorough analysis of a source simply for the point of an argument. The most egregious example of this problem is when she writes of the 'lunatic balls' that people attended as a positive alternative to when people would previous pay to laugh at people in asylums; how these differ in any great respect is beyond me. She later criticizes those spectators, but I believe that that analysis should have occurred right away. And other things, like taking a medical superintendent's passage on how his modern asylum is so much better than the old dungeons at face value, when clearly he would be writing in order to influence people to believe he was truly better and was almost certainly exaggerating aspects of how bad it was before in order to do so. I also think she makes a lot of excuses for the cruelty of medical professionals in the past, which literally almost every author writing on this topic does so I guess it's not a huge issue, but I think it's so unnecessary and personally aggravating to read.
Other than those small issues, I really enjoyed this book. In particular, her focus on literature and her small survey of texts on mental illness is absolutely excellent and really relevant to me. And I LOVE how careful she is about not romanticizing/glorifying mental illness, warning against saying that it's a positive tool for female empowerment, while also not presenting it as a prison for women. She walks the line between those two extremes perfectly. She never uses it solely as a metaphor (as Gilbert and Gubar do), treats it as a very real experience for many, many women, but also doesn't close her self off to its metaphorical capabilities. It's really hard to walk those lines and she does so in a way that I hope I can emulate. Definitely a crucial text for this area, both in its information and approach.
_nems's review against another edition
4.0
This was so interesting and super helpful! Would recommend to anyone interested in Victorian psychosis/general victorian stuff
nikkigee81's review against another edition
4.0
Lady time-travelers, take note - if you wish to set your TARDIS to the Victorian era (and why wouldn't you? It's quite fascinating), be quite careful not to raise suspicion. Especially if you are - not desiring of children, interested in politics or a job outside of the home, or enamoured of cuss words. Be prepared to make a quick exit if you are discovered, for it is quite possible that you would become a prisoner in a mental institution!
Facetiousness aside, this is a quite interesting and well-researched book. Ms. Showalter begins with the Victorian age and their ideas of "madness" as pertaining to women, which was basically anything that showed them to not fit the mold of "femininity" the menfolk had constructed. Hysteria and other "nerve disorders" were pretty much the hallmark of a weaker female system. There is also discussion of the first World War, where male soldiers were suddenly coming home in droves with the same symptoms of the supposed female malady. The book ends on the cusp of the 1970s, where treatment of females and mental illness was a bit better, but still seeming to be focused on the wrong things. I think today we still use ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) in certain circumstances.
Facetiousness aside, this is a quite interesting and well-researched book. Ms. Showalter begins with the Victorian age and their ideas of "madness" as pertaining to women, which was basically anything that showed them to not fit the mold of "femininity" the menfolk had constructed. Hysteria and other "nerve disorders" were pretty much the hallmark of a weaker female system. There is also discussion of the first World War, where male soldiers were suddenly coming home in droves with the same symptoms of the supposed female malady. The book ends on the cusp of the 1970s, where treatment of females and mental illness was a bit better, but still seeming to be focused on the wrong things. I think today we still use ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) in certain circumstances.
iguana_mama's review
5.0
Posted at Shelf Inflicted
Elaine Showalter’s [b:The Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980|342823|The Female Malady Women, Madness and English Culture 1830-1980|Elaine Showalter|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1391394113s/342823.jpg|52337] is a very informative, very accessible, and very disturbing look at how “insanity” was treated from 1830 to 1980. It examines cultural expectations about how women should behave and how these male perceptions affected the diagnosis and treatment of women’s mental health problems.
I read this book from cover to cover and would have been very happy if it were a school text. One of the things I liked most about the book was its personal approach, using the perspectives of female "inmates" themselves, and fiction excerpts from a variety of authors, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Sylvia Plath, Charlotte Bronte, Doris Lessing, and others to highlight women's mental health issues and experiences with doctors and provide an insight into the culture and period.
There was also a section on men who suffered "shell shock" during WWI, the treatment they received, the similarities between "hysterical" men and women, and the modernization of psychiatry.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in mental health, history, and the effects of power and gender imbalance in the mental health care profession and in society.