Scan barcode
A review by jogiebear
Mad, Bad and Sad: A History of Women and the Mind Doctors from 1800 to the Present by Lisa Appignanesi
1.0
This was tortuous to get through, and in some
cases I skipped sections entirely.
Less of an objective historical look on the treatment of women re: mental illness and more of a rambling set of descriptions about various (mostly male) mind doctors with a noted lack of attempt to try and explain terms in a layman’s fashion -and I say this as someone who’s studied psychology. There was also no attempt to explain old diagnoses given to women in the 18th century, and how we might interpret these today in a modern psychiatric setting, meaning that it was difficult to relate to these women at all.
By the end of the book the author seemed to have forgotten that she was supposed to be writing about women and was instead launching on diatribes about the dangers of psychiatry and pharmaceutical drugs. For a supposed ‘history’ book there were a lot of times it felt weirdly personal, and there were a few instances of anecdotal ‘facts’ being thrown in with no evidence to back them up. I felt as if I was reading a 550 page (!!!) editorial, and not a very good one. Extremely disappointing.
cases I skipped sections entirely.
Less of an objective historical look on the treatment of women re: mental illness and more of a rambling set of descriptions about various (mostly male) mind doctors with a noted lack of attempt to try and explain terms in a layman’s fashion -and I say this as someone who’s studied psychology. There was also no attempt to explain old diagnoses given to women in the 18th century, and how we might interpret these today in a modern psychiatric setting, meaning that it was difficult to relate to these women at all.
By the end of the book the author seemed to have forgotten that she was supposed to be writing about women and was instead launching on diatribes about the dangers of psychiatry and pharmaceutical drugs. For a supposed ‘history’ book there were a lot of times it felt weirdly personal, and there were a few instances of anecdotal ‘facts’ being thrown in with no evidence to back them up. I felt as if I was reading a 550 page (!!!) editorial, and not a very good one. Extremely disappointing.