Feminine madness : the self-perpetuating fallacy

Madness has long been regarded as a condition that is commonly associated with the female gender to the extent that it has been termed a “female malady” (Showalter). Indeed, feminine madness has often been juxtaposed against masculine rationality where females were believed to be more prone to suffering from the condition because of their weaker constitution and inherent biology. This is only supported by the fact that hysteria, the quintessential female malady, has been derived from the Greek word hysteron or womb. Yet, although statistics have shown how women have been more vulnerable to experiencing this condition, can they be completely trusted when only half of the population have had the authority to determine what constitutes madness and pronouncing the diagnosis of it? As such, this study intends to look at how madness has been presented from a female perspective and objectively analyze the grounds for this malady or to see if feminine madness is simply a repressive male construct to reiterate gender roles. However, despite this predominant male bias, it would also posit that females have had a large part to play in the perpetuation of this fallacy as they either self objectify (thereby allowing men to inscribe meaning on them) or resign themselves to these labels imposed. Thus, while this study hopes to reveal how feminine madness is largely a self-serving patriarchal construct, it also seeks to explore female complicity in the issue. This paper would focus on Vertigo (1958) by Alfred Hitchcock, The Bell Jar (1963) by Sylvia Plath and Wide Sargasso Sea (1966) by Jean Rhys.Bachelor of Art