This is an old revision of the document!
1. In Women of the Asylum, Geller and Harris mention the idea of the True Woman as the prevailing mindset of both men and women of this time period. This idea presents the image of the passive and submissive wife that is dependent upon her husband for survival, from an economic standpoint and for power within the house and/or marriage. These women were meant to be mothers, yet it was this factor that led to so many women being psychologically imprisoned. Should a woman speak up, should she make suggestions, be independent, or do anything that was considered “abnormal” their husbands, brothers, and/or fathers would have them committed. However, this entire idea seems hypocritical to me. How can a woman be dependent if she is expected to raise children, take care of the home, take care of her husband, etc.? Doesn't that demonstrate a form of independence? I'd like to discuss this mindset some more in class, especially since we are now aware so many women were wrongfully committed.
2. In this time period women are seen as less than men because they are women, meaning they are “weak”, “feeble”, and cannot “process” or “comprehend” things in the ways men can. Yet when women express these emotions they are confined to mental institutions. There's just no winning when it comes to being a woman! Unless you're someone like Dorothea Dix who has the money to “take care” of yourself, then you (as a woman) are pretty much between a rock and a hard place! (Apologies for the mini-rant.)
3. How does the idea of the True Woman conflict with that of the New Woman? Discuss changes in thought, examples, and problems that come with it.
Submitted by Lyndsey Clark. I pledge…
1. Whilst reading Women of the Asylum, I couldn't help but notice the continuous abuse and oppression that the selected women had to face, which brings me to the question; do you think the treatment alone towards someone with a mental illness could eventually cause them to snap?
2. In terms of “snap”, I really want to discuss a book that I had read during my time at UMWs Summer Transition Program; Woman at Point Zero by Nawal El Sadaawi.
Submitted by Erica Banks. I pledge….
1. Why did the APA not care about these abused women during a conference in the 1970s?
2. Why wouldn't the community help Packard when she obviously needed help and why did they suggest breaking her window if that was going to make her seem “insane?”
Submitted by Audrey Schroeder. I pledge…
1.One of the women described asylums as a boarding school for wealthy girls. What does this say about how America viewed the mental health system compared to what the system really looked like? Where do you think people got these perceptions?
2. What do you think caused the female nurses working in the asylums to not be more understanding of the plight of the women being institutionalized? Why were they not able to sympathize with the women who were being unfairly “imprisoned”? Some proposed a female asylum run by all women but would gender have any effect on the poor treatment of patients?
Submitted by Jack Kurz
1. In the foreword of American Women of the Asylum, Phyllis Chesler tells the story of how she was laughed at during a convention hosted by the APA for proposing a million dollars of reparations for the women who the psychiatric system had historically abused. Was her “joke” funny? Or is this, like the argument for reparations for the descendants of slaves, worth talking about and seriously discussing?
2. With what similarities and differences do you think our modern psychiatric system would have helped the women highlighted in this book?
3. Likewise, do you think anyone could have seemed sane after remaining in an asylum like the ones this book discusses? How quickly do you think you (yes, you) would “last”?
Submitted by Theron Gertz. I pledge…