Women and Madness

by Phyllis Chesler

  Juliet Mitchell makes a brilliant point in her analysis of the ideological function of the family in capitalist society. She says that “the family is a stronghold of what capitalism needs to preserve but actually destroys: private property and individualism.” I don’t think, however, that individualism was exactly permitted, especially to women, in a pre-capitalist era.9

  Women, although similar to each other in many ways, are more isolated from each other in terms of groups than men are. Women are not consolidated into public or powerful groups. Women as mothers are “grouped” with their children (who grow up and leave them), and only temporarily and superficially with other women: in parks, at women’s auxiliary functions, and at heterosexual parties. Such women only keep each other company temporarily as they engage in “freely” chosen private lives rather than mandatory wage labor. There is no need to organize for better working conditions if you don’t feel you’re working, or if you feel the definition of work for women is and should be different from that of men. Women as secretaries, domestics, waitresses, prostitutes, and factory workers are not well unionized. These are mainly female jobs and as such are not easy to organize for many reasons: female fatigue because of holding another job at home; female lack of skills and encouragement and consequently of optimism; female fear of male opposition; and, in the case of prostitution, fear of legal as well as physical reprisal, plus the knowledge that it is difficult if not impossible to earn as much money in any other job.

  Professional or middle-income career women are neither leaders nor “brothers” within the professional male organizations. For example, as a professional woman I cannot continue either an important or a casual conversation with a male colleague in the bathroom; I can with a female colleague and it makes a difference. As a business woman, I cannot “do business” with a male colleague or client at an athletic or faculty club, or at a whorehouse or stag party. I have too few female colleagues to similarly indulge and in any event, as women, we have not been socialized to enjoy such institutions—even or especially if they were geared to our advancement. As a career woman I am less likely than a man is to take a sports trip or vacation with a male colleague: what would our spouses say? Without a wife, how could I afford the time away from my children and home? How can I risk being approached as a mistress and losing a professional connection? And if I must worry and stumble over each of these things, how can I have access to support and information that my male colleagues naturally share? If my chances of achieving real power are so slender compared to those of my male counterparts, no wonder my colleagues have no burning desire to cultivate my friendship or encourage my growth. Of course, I can be cultivated—as an assistant, confidante, mistress, or wife. I will not be experienced as a rival or as a protege. I will be a weapon to be used against other men (real rivals). I will gain a token position by helping some male colleague become stronger or maintain his position. (Professional marriages are a common way for women to survive outside the home.)

  Since the women’s liberation movement many American professional women (especially within the universities) began to organize as women. Now woman professionals, particularly in non-female professions, may have other women as colleagues, clients, or employers. Now, feminist women and men have formed organizations for intellectual, economic, emotional, political, and social purposes. In the past, consciousness-raising groups offered women female approval for their anger and for their desire for sexual and economic advancement and liberation. They do not exist today—although book clubs and eating disorders do.

  In feminist groups, many women experienced temporary and isolated refuge from hostile or indifferent family, school, and wage-labor environments. The feminist group experience was an attempt to institutionalize a new ideology of sisterhood, one not based on powerlessness or on support for the patriarchal status-quo.

  Because of the revolutionary nature and vision of feminism, and woman’s basic naiveté, many women suffered their first defeats with surprise. They were not yet aware of the enormity of the task being undertaken. Juliet Mitchell noted that “just as, on the one hand, it is crucial that we are never guilty of underestimating the potential of women, so we must never neglect to be aware of the difficulties of our position. In a different context (that of military struggle), Mao called going it alone and underestimating the difficulties “Left Sectarianism” and underestimating one’s potential and fearing to struggle “Right Opportunism” the conditions of our oppression do condition us. And we have to assess the weakness of women as a political force in order not to succumb to it.10

  In American groups, women were very critical of the “female” rules of handling conflict, such as indirect communication, tears, and evasion. They were equally critical of the “male” rules of handling conflict, such as hierarchical decision-making, compromise (as opposed to consensus), or violence. When conflicts arose, the confrontations were raw and women purposefully resisted both “male” or “female” resolutions. Such purism often led to the same bitterness and paranoia that have characterized many male-dominated groups.

  “Middle-class” liberal work-oriented groups suffered these events somewhat less. They had specific tasks and goals and were not averse to exercising “male” rules of organization or conflict resolution. Their work was—and remains invaluable for women: their visions are not puristically romantic, and they can function with some success within our present culture. Medical, legal, economic, and political reform for women is not to be lightly tossed off as “reformist” and, therefore, useless. Some reforms are crucial and, depending on the context in which they occur, can also be revolutionary.

  Unfortunately, one’s psychology is no easier to change or escape from than is one’s national or biological history. Any attempt to “revolutionize” any of these phenomena usually involves some strict continuation or some modified reappearance of old myths, values, and structures. The blinding recognition of a common plight (oppression) does not immediately do away with that plight: it is only the first of many difficult steps.

  Thus, the American feminist movement has conformed to as many intrinsically valueless conditioned female traits as it has recognized those feminist conditioned female traits which are valuable, and as it has explored new ways for women to “be” in the universe. For example, many feminists have not been able to avoid the female experience of disliking, competing with, and feeling betrayed by other women. And the reasons given are as varied as they are endless: economically and professionally successful women are aggressive elitists; heterosexually committed women are cowards and deserters; happy mothers and Marxist women are fools and fifth columnists; lesbians are sick; white women are racists; black women can’t wait to walk behind their men; middle-aged women wear hats and gloves; young women carry spears and throw bombs. These perceptions were and still are somewhat valid. However, what is being psychologically satisfied is the female belief that she cannot be enhanced or protected by the success or power of any other woman. Psychologically, what is also at work here is an absolute terror of differences.

  We may remember (from Chapter One) that Demeter, the Earth Mother, incorporates her daughter, Persephone, into her own image. The sacrifice of “differences,” of uniqueness, is deeply tied to the female’s endless cycle of biological reproduction and cultural impotence. This is the mythological stratum of the “policing” of women by women, both within families and within feminist groups. Mothers initiate daughters into the sacred sisterhood of discontent not only in order that daughters survive. Mothers are lonely and need nurturance—something they did not receive from their own mothers or husbands, something, like Demeter, they may hope to receive from their daughters. Thus, “rebellious” daughters are treated harshly by their mothers as the deserting lovers and companions they are meant to be. The female “policing” phenomena is rooted in an anguish of powerlessness.

  Mythologically then, a mother’s (or adult woman’s) success or power has meant a loss of freedom or uniqueness
for her daughter. Psychologically and politically in patriarchal society, one woman’s token or temporary “success” is usually purchased at another woman’s expense. The “successful” woman today cannot protect (or mentor or “incorporate”) other women into a non-biologically based image of power or individuality. There are still too few “successful” women to accomplish this. Also, the extraordinary demands placed on the “successful” woman either keep her from being a biological mother or make her allegiance to individual men (as husbands, sons, employers, or colleagues) nearly as necessary as her isolation from other women.

  It seems to me that this dynamic of either female incorporation into the mother or doomed desertion of her will remain true as long as women bear the sole burden of motherhood within a patriarchal family. Also, the complicated Mother-Daughter interaction is a hard and tenacious model to shatter. The feminist language of “sisterhood,” rather than “motherhood” and “daughterhood” reflects both the painfulness of this relationship as well as an attempt to break down corrupt hierarchal barriers between women.

  I may note that “differences” among men certainly exist and are both experienced and resolved, or not resolved, differently. For men, being incorporated or initiated into the male role (or god-figure, or Oedipal father) ideally demands the development of some kind of public strength, mobility, and perhaps even a touch of uniqueness. (It also means renouncing heterosexuality except under certain “safe” conditions.) Male conformity, as I have already noted, implies conformity to action, struggle, thought, mobility, and pleasure; female conformity implies conformity to inaction, resignation, emotionality, and unhappiness. Naturally, incorporation into the Oedipal father is purchased at great emotional expense. The male “policing” of other men is rooted in an anguish of power, and it is a more literal, physical, and public policing than female policing is. Men police both men and women. Adult women cannot police adult men in quite this way.

  Women alone and in groups, including feminist groups, found it hard to abandon the virulent double standard of male-female behavior. They still do. Paradoxically, while women must not “succeed,” when they do succeed at anything, they have still failed if they’re not successful at everything. Women must be perfect (goddesses) or they’re failures (whores). (The violent conditioning of “spotlessness,” coupled with a deep sense of “dirtiness,” in female children runs deep indeed.) If a woman accomplishes a valuable task she, unlike men (who after all, are mortal), still has failed if she has, for example, abandoned the daily care of her children or her looks in order to do so. A woman has failed if she succeeds at winning a legal or intellectual battle but has hurt another woman’s (or man’s) feelings in the process.

  Men have wives and female secretaries both to mother them and to smooth the ruffled feelings of others for them, to serve dinners, buy gifts, and answer the phone for them when they are in bad or busy tempers. Women don’t. Men are also somewhat protected by the universal expectation that they don’t have to be so “nice.”

  Another example: mothers are praised for child rearing but severely condemned, by others, by psychiatrists, and by themselves for anything that goes “wrong” with either their children or their marriages. Ironically, mothers are often seen as failures—by their husbands, by career women, and by some feminists—because they haven’t also achieved careers or independence from their families.*

  Traditionally, women as well as men expect or demand another woman’s help or sacrifice more quickly and easily than they demand a man’s sacrifice or even his cooperation. Objectively, such an expectation is safer and is more realistic. Psychologically, it represents our culture’s higher valuation of men, as well as the assigned female role of “policing” other women in the service of male supremacy. Even within the feminist movement, women do not demand or force certain support from men—either from men whom they know, or from public male sources such as philanthropic foundations, private industries, or government. Beyond a certain point, women are not able to force men to do anything. Fear of male reprisal in terms of physical and sexual violence or further economic abandonment is very great. Also, since women are conditioned to inhabit only the “private” and personal realms, they are genuinely confused about public action and the nature of power. Thus, in America, Betty Freidan’s, Gloria Steinem’s, or Kate Millett’s “contributions” to a particular woman’s cause were more actively expected and sought after than were the U.S. Army’s, General Motors’, or the Vatican’s—all institutions which have far greater resources than those of any individual woman or any individual woman’s group. (Mommy is still safer to milk, blame, and hate than Daddy is. Daddy is feared and addressed in “good girl” tones, or not addressed at all.) Another example: most traditional and feminist child care centers or cooperatives were staffed with women, not men. Babysitting was usually expected of grandmothers, not grandfathers, by daughter-mothers. In the past, feminist groups did not succeed in having their employed husbands collectively assume responsibility for housekeeping, child rearing, and compassionate “listening” within a marriage. (There were many reasons why both feminist and non-feminist women wouldn’t want this to happen: loss of their own identity and source of employment plus a legitimate mistrust of male competence in these areas are the two most obvious reasons.) Today, to some extent, matters have improved—slightly.

  Women, as well as men, are deeply threatened by a woman who does not smile often enough and, paradoxically, who is not very unhappy. Women mistrust and men destroy those women who are not interested in sacrificing at least something for someone for some reason. Rather than achieve at least half or all of Caesar’s power, many women, including some feminists, would prefer to leave it in Caesar’s hands altogether and, in a misguidedly “noble” gesture, sacrifice their individual advancement for the sake of less fortunate women, Third World people, one’s biological children, one’s weary husband, etc. In other words, it is still difficult for most women to stop sacrificing themselves (or saying that they want to) for specific other people, or in personal and private acts. It is still difficult for most women to consider political or technological power as a potentially valid means of alleviating at least some of the human misery and inequality, including their own, that surrounds them.

  The women say that, with the world full of noise they see themselves as already in possession of the industrial complexes. They are in the factories aerodromes radio stations. They have control of communications. They have taken possession of aeronautical electronic ballistic data-processing factories. They are in the foundries tall furnaces navy yards arsenals refineries distilleries. They have taken possession of pumps presses levers rolling-mills winches pullies cranes turbines pneumatic drills arcs blow-lamps. They say that they envisage themselves acting with strength and happiness.

  Monique Wittig11

  For example, women who eschew leadership and/or power are probably doing so because their conditioning forces them to, rather than because they recognize the ruthless aspects of leadership in our culture. As we shall see, this is similar to women eschewing violence or self-defense on principle—when they can’t perform such acts anyway. Such avoidance is not based on choice or morality but on necessity. Women are no more to be congratulated on their “pacifism” than men are to be congratulated for their “violence.”

  Women, even more than men, seem to be threatened by those personal traits in a woman which are original or “male”-like. (Men can afford to be less threatened because so few women manifest such traits and, when they do, can easily be checked or adopted into male service.) For example, women, including many feminists, respond more positively to those projects which ease the burdens of the female status quo rather than to those projects which attempt to redefine or abolish the status quo. Easing the burdens of motherhood and supporting abortion reform are essential tasks, yet they both imply a continuation of a powerless female responsibility for children and for birth control. Women in the public labor force, whether as facto
ry workers or professionals, want better wages and better working conditions (for themselves or their husbands), and more public child care centers. Most women are not yet able to sever their ties to biological reproduction or to the family.

  For example, most women experience the male’s physical or emotional abandonment of his family or children as either cruel or cruelly necessary. He may be a “louse”—or a “victim” of harsh job realities. His behavior is human. However, the female’s similar abandonment of her family—for any purpose—viewed as “unnatural” and “tragic.” The female’s social role is still a biological one: as such she is seen as transgressing against nature when she attempts to change her social role. It is important to note that men are allowed more leeway in social-role failure than are women. Although men are expected to achieve publicly or economically, when they fail or refuse to do so, they are not necessarily seen as “unnatural,” but as either heroes or victims, deserving of our sympathy, understanding, and support.

  Conformity, inflexibility, and a tendency to romanticize the emotional infantilism and unrealistic dependencies of the powerless woman (and to confuse it with a form of wisdom or power) still exist among many women and men, whether they are feminists or not. Women have had little collective experience of public problem-solving and no valuable female role-models. “Power” and “public action” are indeed male, and foreign to them. To the extent to which women in groups dwell more or only on personal feeling than on action, more on “process” than on “product,” they remain victims of female biology and sex-role conditioning. As long as women remain more comfortable with decisions or analyses made by others, or by groups, than with an individually made decision, they are remaining comfortably “female.” This does not mean that only leaders have legitimacy or authority; it does mean that, ideally, each person should feel “legitimate” and should only let someone else speak “for them” if the listener agrees with her through understanding and not out of ignorance or fear.