CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 186Psychology and Mental HealthGender and Feminist StudiesGender, Health, and Social Inequality

The Madness of Women

Ussher, Jane, Ussher, Jane M.·2011·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9780203806579
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Nominated for the 2012 Distinguished Publication Award of the Association for Women in Psychology! Why are women more likely to be positioned or diagnosed as mad than men? If madness is a social construction, a gendered label, as many feminist critics would argue, how can we understand and explain women's prolonged misery and distress? In turn, can we prevent or treat women’s distress, in a non-pathologising women centred way? The Madness of Women addresses these questions through a rigorous exploration of the myths and realities of women's madness. Drawing on academic and clinical experience, including case studies and in-depth interviews, as well as on the now extensive critical literature in the field of mental health, Jane Ussher presents a critical multifactorial analysis of women's madness that both addresses the notion that madness is a myth, and yet acknowledges the reality and multiple causes of women's distress. Topics include: The genealogy of women’s madness – incarceration of difficult or deviant women Regulation through treatment Deconstrucing depression, PMS and borderline personality disorder Madness as a reasonable response to objectification and sexual violence Women’s narratives of resistance This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of psychology, gender studies, sociology, women's studies, cultural studies, counselling and nursing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780203806579

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Structural violence in the form of patriarchal, heteronormative, and transphobic practices have shaped, constrained, and undermined access to timely, appropriate, and supportive mental healthcare for women, gender-diverse people, and 2SLGBTQ+ communities, while normalizing violence and coercion in psychiatric treatment settings.

    “There is also ample literature attesting to the ways in which structural violence in the form of patriarchal, heteronormative, and transphobic practices have shaped, constrained, and undermined access to timely, appropriate, and supportive mental healthcare for women, gender-diverse people, and 2SLGBTQ+ communities, while normalizing violence and coercion in psychiatric treatment settings [59–62].”

    From “Backed into a Corner”: Lived experiences of receiving and providing involuntary psychiatric treatment under British Columbia’s Mental Health Act (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ussher, J., & Ussher, J. M.
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2011-03-28
DOI
10.4324/9780203806579
OpenAlex
W4239456052
Cited by
186
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.31
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
Keywords
female madness, gender and mental illness, social construction of madness, women prisoners, depression, premenstrual syndrome, borderline personality disorder, objectification, sexual violence, woman-centred care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review