Talk:Female hysteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Female hysteria has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 5, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

There is someone trying to spoil the beautiful work some of you have done!!! Please check it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.99.42 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we didn't have an article on this until ten minutes ago--good catch, that! On the other hand I'm worried about our sources here--with so much scholarly research on this, surely something better is available than beavershaver.com? I'm a bit uncomfortable directing our readers via footnote to a page urging them to buy vibrators--not because it's vibrators, but just because it has the effect of an ad. Can any new sources be found? --Dvyost 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This article happened to be created as I was pondering adapting some of an old term paper of mine to hysteria: thus the sudden profusion of references. I would do more work now, but I'm rather done for the day. If you don't like the vibrator seller, I have a paper reference for a similar list, or I could find another online reference. — Laura Scudder | Talk 08:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the paper reference might be more appropriate; it would certainly be more persuasive. Thanks for taking the time to footnote all this, by the way, and to add these great images. This would be a fascinating article to try to expand up to Featured length. (Freud could probably make up a nice long section of this, no?) --Dvyost 11:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Being a FAC was rather what I was hoping for one day for this topic. I've still got a lot more material that I haven't included (mostly on the analysis of the phenomenon as it needs the most rewriting to become encyclopedic instead of argumentative — not that what I've added is all the way there). I've got a great quote I want to work in by an American physician on how proud he is that America caught up with Europe in hysteria cases as it shows that they've caught up in how civilized they are.
It'd make a great addition, but I'd need help writing anything of length about Freud: for this particular topic I didn't delve into Freud much, but I think I still have all my initial research, which was more broad in scope. I'm also thinking of picking up The Technology of Orgasm from the library as the book naturally touches on a wider range of things than I could in my paper.
I'm glad another editor is excited about this article. Don't be shy about editing mercilessly. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Freud (and actually all of this) is a bit out of my field as well; I read Dora seven years ago and that's about it. I'll see if I can pop in here from time to time to help with grammar or the technical side. Looks like you've got it well in hand, though. Good luck! --Dvyost 18:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Since this article branched off from the main hysteria one, I thought I'd point out (and second) this request from the 'hysteria' talk page: "What about feminist criticism of the concept of "hysteria"?" I also wonder if the long-standing link in Europe (and later in America) between 'hysteria' and accusations of demonic possession and witchcraft might be worth a look. I hesitate to add anything myself, as it's clear the article's already undergoing revisions by knowledgeable folks, and I don't have any good source books to hand. --LaPrecieuse 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been intending to expand upon the witchcraft aspect for quite some time. As with many psychiatric subjects, there has historically been cycling between hysteria as a pathology and hysteria as a spiritual malady. Witchcraft trials reflect the latter, and decreased in frequency as the medical profession expanded and redifined epilepsy, conversion disorders, etc. as diseases. Micale's book Approaching hysteria: disease and its interpretations elaborates on this I believe.
Don't be shy about editing. The article's a little focused on the Victorian era because that was the original subject of my research. I've been meaning to expand beyond that for a while, but am procrastinator by nature. I'll try to get my act together though. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Boston Legal

The episode of Boston Legal tonight had this "disease" mentioned as well as a device used to "cure" it. If someone wants to add it to the article I'm willing to help.

If you'd like to add a popular culture section, feel free. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NY times

Anyone want to add something from today's science times? "Is Hysteria Real? Brain Images Say Yes" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/science/26hysteria.html?8dpc

[edit] External Links

This looks like it will fit this article. I'm the author, so I won't put it there... Mehmetaergun 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about this article's approach

This article is about 95% sociology / feminist theory and about 5% medicine in terms of its approach and references. All but the fifth and least used reference approach hysteria from a sociology perspective. I agree that this perspective is important, but I think the article needs significant balancing, especially from a modern psychiatry (bio-psycho-social) perspective. This is NOT an article about "history of the female orgasm."-RustavoTalk/Contribs 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


I believe it's wrong to trace this back too far like the article does. In melancholy under "arab" one find examples of lovesickness, depression and other mental ailments being treated as "huzn", while europeans might call it "melancholy". The central point here is that there is a multitude of mental illnesses and moods that are or were not easily classified, but over the centuries different labels for subsets of these illnesses went in and out of vogue. The article as it stands today documents the fading out of "hysteria" pretty well, but it does a weak job at describing how and why the term caught on, and I suspect it places too much emphasis on the manual-stimulation case. Mental-asylum cases likely got a different treatment :-(
That said, I disagree with Rustavo on there being too little medicine here. As "hysteria" is not recognized as an illness any longer and never had a well-defined set of symptoms, modern medicine dosn't have much to add here. In hindsight, hysteria was "only" a cultural phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.118.37 (talk • contribs) -BR
It documents the sociology approach because it's based entirely on research I did for a sociology term paper. I completely agree that it needs balancing, but so far no one has stepped up to do it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Hilde Bondevik [1] saw hysteria as a form of protest among women, just to name one of many points of view. The idea here I think, was that for instance "hysteria" legitimized a violent behaviour against authority. She thinks Freud's Dora got too much attention and documented that men and children also got the diagnosis. I'm afraid I lack the background to contribute much to this article, but as they say, evereyone's a critic. ;-) -BR

[edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally i contribute to topics in the sphere of religion and spirituality so this is a rather racy departure for me. Nevertheless i felt compelled to make a correction. Somebody had replaced the phrase 'vaginal massage' with 'genital massage' and this is incorrect. The medical treatment for hysteria over the centuries was not stimulation of the clitoris and vulva but what is today called the 'g-spot'. So, to be absolutely precise, the 'hysterical paroxysm' mentioned in the introduction is not merely a common or garden 'clitoral orgasm' but a 'g-spot orgasm' which is qualitatively different. I know it's all rather gory but the details do matter. Langdell (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)