Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to wonder whether ADHD is normal and society is the issue

578 replies

LadyBeatriceBeaHiggins · 31/07/2026 13:47

No offence intended

Discussing about Adhd with a friend who has Adhd and we wondered what if Adhd is naturally a part of being human and its the way society trys to make humans into machines that is the problem ?

so figured id open up our debate for fellow mumsnetters

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
10
Easilyforgotten · 04/09/2026 23:02

I don't think anyone is NT. We are all diverse in our own way. It is simply a matter of luck whether your particular diversity is a positive or negative depending on the time and place you are born. You've only got to look through history to see who thrived and who didn't. There is no such thing as normal in my opinion, just some who adapt to the prevailing conditions better than others.

brunettemic · 04/09/2026 22:49

As it’s naturally occurring it’s clearly “normal”. But I can see the argument that by people needing to be treated “differently” it makes it not “normal”.
I think it fundamentally comes down to what you view as normal. So many people that are ND makes significant leaps forward in inventing things, so you could argue those individuals aren’t “normal” because they make those leaps. In the same vein it’s “normal” that people operate and think differently.
In summary…I have no idea.

ScrollingLeaves · 04/09/2026 22:03

“impulsive or risky sex is one trait people with ADHD can have”

And it is important to note that it is also a trait of people who have been sexually abused.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 04/09/2026 06:56

MaIeficent · 03/09/2026 21:04

Well, nobody is creating threads asking if schizophrenia is normal and society is the issue, are they!

Completely agree with this. ADHD is really unfairly targeted.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 04/09/2026 06:55

MaIeficent · 03/09/2026 21:00

I'm not sure grabbing a sandwich out the chiller and tapping a card on the machine would look vastly different for any of them. Half the time the cashier's on the phone anyway.

I really think it might. Someone with severe schizophrenia, even on an average day, is unlikely to be able to get across a few roads, and complete a basic task without thinking they're being followed and running off / following some other delusion etc. They also find it extremely difficult to order their thoughts properly, and even order their speech.

An autistic person without severe LD (so not profound autism) but serious additional needs (i.e. what can be called severe autism, but not a term many like) might have a meltdown and purposefully hit their head on the wall because something about their daily route changed. They might put their hands down their trousers in public (with all the issues that could cause). Etc etc

Not really comparable even to severe ADHD and mainstream ability autistic people. As you pointed out, relatively simple to just grab a sandwich.

There are such enormous differences in the severities of these conditions and real life functioning (e.g. it's the type of thing PIP attempts to measure). It feels like a form of gaslighting to say they're all the same etc etc.

MaIeficent · 03/09/2026 21:04

LittleFootprintsInSand · 03/09/2026 05:56

Re lack of personality change, I mean it's largely only going to be impulse heat of moment or addiction crimes for ADHD. People with ADHD don't want to be raping or murdering just because they have ADHD unless they have a personality problem as well. So unless the crime was a logical "this person annoyed me, so I lost it in the moment" crime, at least one element of diminished responsibility does not hold water. "I waited in a dark spot, hunted down this stranger, waited until they were alone, and killed them" or any other similar crime for ADHD doesn't make as much sense.

Schizophrenia doesn't affect personality either, but when they commit crimes it's generally because that is their true and complete belief at the time, they are generally aiming to commit the acts. They generally have no insight as to why it's wrong. I know some people with schizophrenia who commit crimes are not deemed diminished responsibility, so there is some nuance, but the bar is incredibly high and anyone with absolutely florid psychosis at time of crime will likely to be deemed to have no responsibility (so beyond even diminished responsibility).

Re impulses - yes the tension (and emotional dyregulation) can rise over time etc but it shows they definitely have some (not insignificant) control over impulses. I have taught children in SEMH schools and PRUs with very severe ADHD, and even unmedicated (although very difficult) it's clear that at least some of the time they can contain many of their actions. They tend not to physically attack staff for example, even when staff discipline them. When they fight, yes it can get really nasty occasionally, but it is relatively rare to see someone completely lose it to the point that they will just keep going and beat each other to death (16 year old boys are definitely physically capable of this). One of the only times a child completely and utterly lost it to point of nearly killing someone that I personally know of, they had a comorbid mild LD. We wouldn't be teaching a child currently in a psychotic episode in a community school, it couldn't be safely or reasonably managed for anyone.

The way psychosis affects someone's life is much more profound and risky than for ADHD. It's not really very fair to compare them. The quality of life implications for psychosis are just so massive. Just about anyone with a severe acute psychosis will need treated in a hospital, only a small proportion of people with severe ADHD will be in prison. In fact if you look over all the statistics - prison, mental health hospital placement, suicide - schizophrenia tends to fare much worse.

This is why the autism/ severe autism / high needs autism etc debate is relevant and can be so upsetting, because we just seem to have lost our collective perspective on what very profound disabilities look like.

Well, nobody is creating threads asking if schizophrenia is normal and society is the issue, are they!

MaIeficent · 03/09/2026 21:00

LittleFootprintsInSand · 03/09/2026 06:12

Sorry to dominate thread but I think moving away from violence, let's imagine a different, very basic every day scenario - you (an adult) have no food in the house, so you need to go to the local small shop 1 mile away across a couple of roads, get something edible, and come back.

  • What could that look like on an average day for someone with severe ADHD of mainstream ability cognition?
  • What would that look like on an average day for someone with severe schizophrenia of mainstream ability cognition?
  • What would that look like for an autistic person with mainstream abilities?
  • What would it look like for an autistic person who does not have a severe LD but had to be taught in a special school all their life?

It just feels a bit 😕 to say that they could all have the same level of difficulties and barriers and all at the same level of risks.

Edited

I'm not sure grabbing a sandwich out the chiller and tapping a card on the machine would look vastly different for any of them. Half the time the cashier's on the phone anyway.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 03/09/2026 06:16

LastMinuteAgain · 03/09/2026 05:43

Yes, you're right, although as with Autism the interplay made their learning disabilities present as far more severe than they really were - medication and interventions took one child from no functional language (including not being able to use any form of intentional alternative communication) to speaking, making friends and learning to read and write.

Hi, yes agree - interplay between comorbidities significantly affects things.

Thanks for sharing that experience, actually makes me reconsider something for one of my own children.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 03/09/2026 06:12

Sorry to dominate thread but I think moving away from violence, let's imagine a different, very basic every day scenario - you (an adult) have no food in the house, so you need to go to the local small shop 1 mile away across a couple of roads, get something edible, and come back.

  • What could that look like on an average day for someone with severe ADHD of mainstream ability cognition?
  • What would that look like on an average day for someone with severe schizophrenia of mainstream ability cognition?
  • What would that look like for an autistic person with mainstream abilities?
  • What would it look like for an autistic person who does not have a severe LD but had to be taught in a special school all their life?

It just feels a bit 😕 to say that they could all have the same level of difficulties and barriers and all at the same level of risks.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 03/09/2026 05:56

catwithasunhat · 03/09/2026 04:38

I'm not saying I don't understand the basis on which the current system determines who gets to plead diminished responsibility and who doesn't (and whose pleas are ultimately likely to be successful - interestingly many murderers with schizophrenia are not deemed to have diminished responsibility). But I don't think it's beyond question and I think many of the assumptions it's based on are false. Like when you say that there's still some element of insight and control over your reactions even with severe ADHD (the position taken by most courts), simply because people aren't going around reacting to every impulse or annoyance, I really cannot agree. To me this just seems like a lack of understanding as to how loss of control comes about in the first place and what it means to live with and try to manage extreme levels of impulsiveness (I do not have this type of ADHD myself but I have read a lot about it and about similar conditions).

I don't think it follows that because someone has insight and control most of the time that they therefore have it all of the time and I can't see how that could ever even be knowable for every individual in every instance. I think the evidence actually points to the fact that some people with severe Hyperactive/Impulsive ADHD can briefly and totally lose both insight and control over their actions even when they're making every effort to ensure that doesn't happen. Often because the amount of effort it takes to suppress constant, unwanted impulses is immense, especially if undiagnosed and unmedicated, and sometimes exertion exhaustion sets in and the person becomes temporarily unable to continue managing them. In an ideal world, you would remove yourself from the company of other people or situations in which you might get into trouble if you were aware you were reaching that point but we don't live in an ideal world - some sufferers also have massive impairments in self-awareness and forward planning abilities and sometimes even when they get everything right, real life conspires against them. Jails are full of people with head injuries and ADHD for this reason. I'm sure some of them at least would have avoided being there had they genuinely been able to control their behaviour at all times, and the fact that crime and recidivism rates drop so dramatically when ADHD is identified and treated supports that.

It also seems that if an autistic person is violent to others during a meltdown they are unlikely to be able to plead diminished responsibility even though the evidence emerging from the autistic community suggests that most individuals are not in control of their behaviour in these moments either.

Ultimately, the system is unlikely to change because we don't have the resources to treat every violent individual as a patient and nor is it safe to let them all go free. But I don't think the fact that schizophrenia is more likely to be accepted as grounds for diminished responsibility is any sort of definitive proof that people with severe ADHD have either insight or full control over their behaviour at all times.

Also, as noted above, most schizophrenics do not go off and beat someone up randomly - strangers are rarely their victims and there's usually background to the situation like existing family tensions, untaken medication and drug and alcohol use. According to this article from Reuters "Pooling data from seven studies in four countries, researchers found that the odds of a person with schizophrenia killing a stranger were 1 in 14 million people per year.").. It's almost always people known to them who they kill. Presumably they were in control of their actions until they very suddenly weren't, or else their victims would have removed themselves from their presence before it was too late. Loss of control seems to happen very quickly in all sorts of conditions that affect the brain and clearly cannot always be easily anticipated.

And what does something changing your personality have to do with anything? ADHD cannot change your personality because you have it from birth - there was never a time when the sufferer didn't have it so you can't really say what the person would have been like without it in the way you can with schizophrenia which is very rarely developed before adolescence at the earliest. Unless you look at the difference in behaviour before and after ADHD medication in someone for whom medication is effective (it obviously isn't for many people). This can often be quite extreme and in my opinion can be indicative of which aspects of a person's ADHD may truly be within their control. However, it may work on some symptoms but not others, or a person may find it effective but not be able to tolerate it which complicates things.

Re lack of personality change, I mean it's largely only going to be impulse heat of moment or addiction crimes for ADHD. People with ADHD don't want to be raping or murdering just because they have ADHD unless they have a personality problem as well. So unless the crime was a logical "this person annoyed me, so I lost it in the moment" crime, at least one element of diminished responsibility does not hold water. "I waited in a dark spot, hunted down this stranger, waited until they were alone, and killed them" or any other similar crime for ADHD doesn't make as much sense.

Schizophrenia doesn't affect personality either, but when they commit crimes it's generally because that is their true and complete belief at the time, they are generally aiming to commit the acts. They generally have no insight as to why it's wrong. I know some people with schizophrenia who commit crimes are not deemed diminished responsibility, so there is some nuance, but the bar is incredibly high and anyone with absolutely florid psychosis at time of crime will likely to be deemed to have no responsibility (so beyond even diminished responsibility).

Re impulses - yes the tension (and emotional dyregulation) can rise over time etc but it shows they definitely have some (not insignificant) control over impulses. I have taught children in SEMH schools and PRUs with very severe ADHD, and even unmedicated (although very difficult) it's clear that at least some of the time they can contain many of their actions. They tend not to physically attack staff for example, even when staff discipline them. When they fight, yes it can get really nasty occasionally, but it is relatively rare to see someone completely lose it to the point that they will just keep going and beat each other to death (16 year old boys are definitely physically capable of this). One of the only times a child completely and utterly lost it to point of nearly killing someone that I personally know of, they had a comorbid mild LD. We wouldn't be teaching a child currently in a psychotic episode in a community school, it couldn't be safely or reasonably managed for anyone.

The way psychosis affects someone's life is much more profound and risky than for ADHD. It's not really very fair to compare them. The quality of life implications for psychosis are just so massive. Just about anyone with a severe acute psychosis will need treated in a hospital, only a small proportion of people with severe ADHD will be in prison. In fact if you look over all the statistics - prison, mental health hospital placement, suicide - schizophrenia tends to fare much worse.

This is why the autism/ severe autism / high needs autism etc debate is relevant and can be so upsetting, because we just seem to have lost our collective perspective on what very profound disabilities look like.

LastMinuteAgain · 03/09/2026 05:43

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 21:54

The only children I've worked with (or lived with!!!) with this kind of ADHD also had an Intellectual Disability and were in special schools. LD + ADHD has significant affect on ability to control impulses / hyperactivity. Wondering if that's the case with you too and whether you taught at a generic state special school?

Yes, you're right, although as with Autism the interplay made their learning disabilities present as far more severe than they really were - medication and interventions took one child from no functional language (including not being able to use any form of intentional alternative communication) to speaking, making friends and learning to read and write.

catwithasunhat · 03/09/2026 04:38

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 07:27

With severe ADHD ,as I think @MaIeficent said, the impulsivity and emotional dyregulation might make you thump someone who has wound you up in the moment, but you are not going to go off and beat someone randomly and you still have some insight - you know it's wrong. ADHD alone doesn't change your personality and there is still some element of control over your reactions even with severe ADHD (because you're not acting on every single impulse or annoyance). Even with the kind of severe ADHD that gets kids into big problems, they're not walking around doing EXACTLY what they want and smacking every person who annoys them across every minute of their day (as they would if they literally had no control whatsoever). Just like they don't get hit by cars every week, because they're impulsively crossing the road without checking, or have sex with every person they find attractive whether that person wants it or not.

Schizophrenia affects people in a different way to ADHD so it's difficult to make a comparison anyway. Most people in an acute schizophrenic episode are not violent and are more of a danger to themselves than anyone else. That said, it's just not comparable: they have no insight and will generally always act according to their delusions and/or hallucinations (whatever they are, they're not always command voices) because that is a complete reality to them.

It's not about 'being taken more seriously', it's about how one condition can completely diminish (or even remove) your responsibility and insight into actions in a way that the other can't to even nearly the same degree.

I'm not saying I don't understand the basis on which the current system determines who gets to plead diminished responsibility and who doesn't (and whose pleas are ultimately likely to be successful - interestingly many murderers with schizophrenia are not deemed to have diminished responsibility). But I don't think it's beyond question and I think many of the assumptions it's based on are false. Like when you say that there's still some element of insight and control over your reactions even with severe ADHD (the position taken by most courts), simply because people aren't going around reacting to every impulse or annoyance, I really cannot agree. To me this just seems like a lack of understanding as to how loss of control comes about in the first place and what it means to live with and try to manage extreme levels of impulsiveness (I do not have this type of ADHD myself but I have read a lot about it and about similar conditions).

I don't think it follows that because someone has insight and control most of the time that they therefore have it all of the time and I can't see how that could ever even be knowable for every individual in every instance. I think the evidence actually points to the fact that some people with severe Hyperactive/Impulsive ADHD can briefly and totally lose both insight and control over their actions even when they're making every effort to ensure that doesn't happen. Often because the amount of effort it takes to suppress constant, unwanted impulses is immense, especially if undiagnosed and unmedicated, and sometimes exertion exhaustion sets in and the person becomes temporarily unable to continue managing them. In an ideal world, you would remove yourself from the company of other people or situations in which you might get into trouble if you were aware you were reaching that point but we don't live in an ideal world - some sufferers also have massive impairments in self-awareness and forward planning abilities and sometimes even when they get everything right, real life conspires against them. Jails are full of people with head injuries and ADHD for this reason. I'm sure some of them at least would have avoided being there had they genuinely been able to control their behaviour at all times, and the fact that crime and recidivism rates drop so dramatically when ADHD is identified and treated supports that.

It also seems that if an autistic person is violent to others during a meltdown they are unlikely to be able to plead diminished responsibility even though the evidence emerging from the autistic community suggests that most individuals are not in control of their behaviour in these moments either.

Ultimately, the system is unlikely to change because we don't have the resources to treat every violent individual as a patient and nor is it safe to let them all go free. But I don't think the fact that schizophrenia is more likely to be accepted as grounds for diminished responsibility is any sort of definitive proof that people with severe ADHD have either insight or full control over their behaviour at all times.

Also, as noted above, most schizophrenics do not go off and beat someone up randomly - strangers are rarely their victims and there's usually background to the situation like existing family tensions, untaken medication and drug and alcohol use. According to this article from Reuters "Pooling data from seven studies in four countries, researchers found that the odds of a person with schizophrenia killing a stranger were 1 in 14 million people per year.").. It's almost always people known to them who they kill. Presumably they were in control of their actions until they very suddenly weren't, or else their victims would have removed themselves from their presence before it was too late. Loss of control seems to happen very quickly in all sorts of conditions that affect the brain and clearly cannot always be easily anticipated.

And what does something changing your personality have to do with anything? ADHD cannot change your personality because you have it from birth - there was never a time when the sufferer didn't have it so you can't really say what the person would have been like without it in the way you can with schizophrenia which is very rarely developed before adolescence at the earliest. Unless you look at the difference in behaviour before and after ADHD medication in someone for whom medication is effective (it obviously isn't for many people). This can often be quite extreme and in my opinion can be indicative of which aspects of a person's ADHD may truly be within their control. However, it may work on some symptoms but not others, or a person may find it effective but not be able to tolerate it which complicates things.

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 22:17

WhatTheHellsGoingOn · 02/09/2026 21:00

That’s why it was mainly the prerogative of the wealthy - you dispute this?

I don’t know how many women were incarcerated in the Magdalen houses - they paid for their own upkeep through slave labour

‘That’s why it was mainly the prerogative of the wealthy - you dispute this?’
Er, ….., no I don’t.

‘Magdalen houses’
They weren’t mental hospitals, were they?

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 21:54

LastMinuteAgain · 02/09/2026 21:37

I've worked with children in special education settings who are totally at the mercy of their ADHD when not medicated, to the extent that they haven't acquired functional language - they are constantly "glitching" for lack of a better way to describe it - you can see it in the speed of their eye movements.

No, they're not aggressive (although one child would bite if you had to physically stop her doing something that put her life in immediate danger - like running into traffic or jumping off a wall with a four metre drip on the other side... That wasn't aggression it was a reflex).

I worked with three children with that type of ADHD over the years and all three were able to learn once they had suitable medication but before that even keeping them physically safe was incredibly difficult and their families were at breaking point.

The children didn't have control. It wasn't about morality - they were disruptive and sometimes accidentally hurt others, though never seriously - the issue was that they had zero quality of life.

None of them had mobile phones nor the concentration span to use one. I don't think "modern life" created their situation nor that they'd have been superstar hunter-gatherers or whatever nonsense people come up with. They wouldn't have lived to adulthood in previous centuries but they will in this one and two of the three were increasingly verbal and building relationships with peers for the first time and generally thriving once on medication and receiving intensive speech therapy , occupational therapy and educational interventions.

That "type" of ADHD hasn't disappeared, they're just not the people making social media reels

The only children I've worked with (or lived with!!!) with this kind of ADHD also had an Intellectual Disability and were in special schools. LD + ADHD has significant affect on ability to control impulses / hyperactivity. Wondering if that's the case with you too and whether you taught at a generic state special school?

LastMinuteAgain · 02/09/2026 21:37

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 07:27

With severe ADHD ,as I think @MaIeficent said, the impulsivity and emotional dyregulation might make you thump someone who has wound you up in the moment, but you are not going to go off and beat someone randomly and you still have some insight - you know it's wrong. ADHD alone doesn't change your personality and there is still some element of control over your reactions even with severe ADHD (because you're not acting on every single impulse or annoyance). Even with the kind of severe ADHD that gets kids into big problems, they're not walking around doing EXACTLY what they want and smacking every person who annoys them across every minute of their day (as they would if they literally had no control whatsoever). Just like they don't get hit by cars every week, because they're impulsively crossing the road without checking, or have sex with every person they find attractive whether that person wants it or not.

Schizophrenia affects people in a different way to ADHD so it's difficult to make a comparison anyway. Most people in an acute schizophrenic episode are not violent and are more of a danger to themselves than anyone else. That said, it's just not comparable: they have no insight and will generally always act according to their delusions and/or hallucinations (whatever they are, they're not always command voices) because that is a complete reality to them.

It's not about 'being taken more seriously', it's about how one condition can completely diminish (or even remove) your responsibility and insight into actions in a way that the other can't to even nearly the same degree.

I've worked with children in special education settings who are totally at the mercy of their ADHD when not medicated, to the extent that they haven't acquired functional language - they are constantly "glitching" for lack of a better way to describe it - you can see it in the speed of their eye movements.

No, they're not aggressive (although one child would bite if you had to physically stop her doing something that put her life in immediate danger - like running into traffic or jumping off a wall with a four metre drip on the other side... That wasn't aggression it was a reflex).

I worked with three children with that type of ADHD over the years and all three were able to learn once they had suitable medication but before that even keeping them physically safe was incredibly difficult and their families were at breaking point.

The children didn't have control. It wasn't about morality - they were disruptive and sometimes accidentally hurt others, though never seriously - the issue was that they had zero quality of life.

None of them had mobile phones nor the concentration span to use one. I don't think "modern life" created their situation nor that they'd have been superstar hunter-gatherers or whatever nonsense people come up with. They wouldn't have lived to adulthood in previous centuries but they will in this one and two of the three were increasingly verbal and building relationships with peers for the first time and generally thriving once on medication and receiving intensive speech therapy , occupational therapy and educational interventions.

That "type" of ADHD hasn't disappeared, they're just not the people making social media reels

WhatTheHellsGoingOn · 02/09/2026 21:00

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 09:11

I think women being put away upon their husband’s signature is something made much of these days, but I would love to find out the hard facts of it.
i’m sure it would have been seen as abuse at the time. For starters you needed to be able to pay for it.

That’s why it was mainly the prerogative of the wealthy - you dispute this?

I don’t know how many women were incarcerated in the Magdalen houses - they paid for their own upkeep through slave labour

MaIeficent · 02/09/2026 19:43

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 07:27

With severe ADHD ,as I think @MaIeficent said, the impulsivity and emotional dyregulation might make you thump someone who has wound you up in the moment, but you are not going to go off and beat someone randomly and you still have some insight - you know it's wrong. ADHD alone doesn't change your personality and there is still some element of control over your reactions even with severe ADHD (because you're not acting on every single impulse or annoyance). Even with the kind of severe ADHD that gets kids into big problems, they're not walking around doing EXACTLY what they want and smacking every person who annoys them across every minute of their day (as they would if they literally had no control whatsoever). Just like they don't get hit by cars every week, because they're impulsively crossing the road without checking, or have sex with every person they find attractive whether that person wants it or not.

Schizophrenia affects people in a different way to ADHD so it's difficult to make a comparison anyway. Most people in an acute schizophrenic episode are not violent and are more of a danger to themselves than anyone else. That said, it's just not comparable: they have no insight and will generally always act according to their delusions and/or hallucinations (whatever they are, they're not always command voices) because that is a complete reality to them.

It's not about 'being taken more seriously', it's about how one condition can completely diminish (or even remove) your responsibility and insight into actions in a way that the other can't to even nearly the same degree.

That's pretty much what I meant. ADHD isn't going to make you plot to kill your SIL because you think she's been brainwashed by aliens.

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 19:36

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 18:18

I guess I believe the history re abuse of women was exactly as bad and used as often as people imagine. I reckon it was rather common.

That's very sad to hear - I'm sorry you've had that experience on here.

Oh definitely take care reading it, some very disturbing themes.

I completely agree re abuse.
When I was a child (1960s) there was some political debate going on which I don’t recall. What I recall hearing often repeated was the phrase “ a man’s home is his castle “. It’s a very long time since I’ve heard that, fortunately! I think the general idea was that a man was “ master in his home” and he got to decide what happened there. Very many people were of the opinion that it was a violation of democracy to put interfering legislation in place to manage a man’s treatment of HIS wife/ children/ animals. It was up to him to decide. 🫪

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 18:18

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 18:07

Okay, fine, although I’m unclear really what we’re slightly disagreeing on!
I’m glad you don’t dismiss older people as dim. Sometimes I think I should change my username as I get so many patronising and dismissive comments here as a result of what people assume about me( not suggesting that’s what you’re doing).
I’ll take a look at Yellow Wallpaper although I guess it may contain some strong material.

I guess I believe the history re abuse of women was exactly as bad and used as often as people imagine. I reckon it was rather common.

That's very sad to hear - I'm sorry you've had that experience on here.

Oh definitely take care reading it, some very disturbing themes.

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 18:07

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 16:46

Oh, another poster wanted to only allow strict discussions of ADHD, so I agree with you it is all on topic.

I would never dismiss older people as dim.

I think we have to agree to slightly disagree re the rest.

The Yellow Wallpaper is semi-autobiographical based on the author's experiences of the rest cures I mentioned.

Okay, fine, although I’m unclear really what we’re slightly disagreeing on!
I’m glad you don’t dismiss older people as dim. Sometimes I think I should change my username as I get so many patronising and dismissive comments here as a result of what people assume about me( not suggesting that’s what you’re doing).
I’ll take a look at Yellow Wallpaper although I guess it may contain some strong material.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 16:46

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 15:06

Yes, I'm absolutely against romanticising history. Saying that 'husbands could do x' when it was clearly recognised as an abuse it a type of romanticising, ie making up tales around, history. So, I'm against romanticising history.

I don't think I could have spelled it out more clearly that I think of the history of the treatment of the mentally ill is, for the most part, a history of cruelty.
Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that because my username reveals that I'm an older person, therefore I must be dim and unenlightened. This is very common on MN. Believe me, I study these topics with great interest.
You cite a novel as evidence for your post. I don't believe I have disagreed with the thrust of what you are saying.
it's just that years of experience have taught me the wisdom of studying the sources, rather than relying on fiction.
I'm unsure who's gone off topic, but I think all this us relevant to the current discussion.

Oh, another poster wanted to only allow strict discussions of ADHD, so I agree with you it is all on topic.

I would never dismiss older people as dim.

I think we have to agree to slightly disagree re the rest.

The Yellow Wallpaper is semi-autobiographical based on the author's experiences of the rest cures I mentioned.

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 15:06

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 13:20

At some point the law changed to require two doctor's signatures but there were many cases before that. Even where two signatures were required doctors were often more sympathetic to the husbands / fathers than the "hysterical", "unbalanced" or even just "mentally overactive" women they incarcerated. There were a couple of famous cases where women proved they had been wronged, but they often involved periods of hiding and very long legal battles (in some cases which involved changing the law to even allow them to fight back legally).

Outside of the more extreme (although not all that uncommon) case studies of forced institutionalisation, there were also doctors who colluded with husbands to basically force women into "treatments" such as rest cures. You can read The Yellow Wallpaper as a fictional example of a very real phenomenon.

Another way inconvenient women were controlled by fathers and husbands in the good old days was just by the threat that they could be chucked in a mental institution, or have their children taken away from them, or be put on rest cure etc etc. They will have heard about it happening to others and those things would put the fear of God into many women.

I think this history is just about as bad as people make out, and certainly very real. The fact that this history is gendered is also real.

To bring it back to thread, I agree with other poster, we shouldn't necessarily romanticise the good old days.

Yes, I'm absolutely against romanticising history. Saying that 'husbands could do x' when it was clearly recognised as an abuse it a type of romanticising, ie making up tales around, history. So, I'm against romanticising history.

I don't think I could have spelled it out more clearly that I think of the history of the treatment of the mentally ill is, for the most part, a history of cruelty.
Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that because my username reveals that I'm an older person, therefore I must be dim and unenlightened. This is very common on MN. Believe me, I study these topics with great interest.
You cite a novel as evidence for your post. I don't believe I have disagreed with the thrust of what you are saying.
it's just that years of experience have taught me the wisdom of studying the sources, rather than relying on fiction.
I'm unsure who's gone off topic, but I think all this us relevant to the current discussion.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 13:20

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 11:30

'We do a serious injustice to the women who came before us if we dismiss or minimise their suffering.'
I completely agree with this sentiment.
Unfortunately, another way of dismissing women's suffering is the spreading of misinformation and half truths.
As I understand the situation, two doctors were required to sign a committal to a mental establishment. In the 19th c. there were about four cases which attracted enormous public interest, where the husband had bribed two doctors to sign such a certificate. These cases were seen as scandalous. As I understand it, in every case, the unfortunate woman did in fact escape the mental institution. No doubt, partly as a result of these notorious cases, the law was changed around 1890, so that an order was required from a judge before an individual could be committed to a mental institution.
I understand that men could also fall victim to this, when they were heirs to money/property which someone else wished to acquire for themselves.
This does not equate to 'men could ...'. This was always seen as abhorrent and criminal.
I am convinced that the history of mental institutions is largely one of appalling suffering with some truly awful individuals, as well as some outstandingly great ones.
But I don't think it helps to spread half truths.
I'm sure I've got some of this wrong, but at least it's a bit more accurate.

At some point the law changed to require two doctor's signatures but there were many cases before that. Even where two signatures were required doctors were often more sympathetic to the husbands / fathers than the "hysterical", "unbalanced" or even just "mentally overactive" women they incarcerated. There were a couple of famous cases where women proved they had been wronged, but they often involved periods of hiding and very long legal battles (in some cases which involved changing the law to even allow them to fight back legally).

Outside of the more extreme (although not all that uncommon) case studies of forced institutionalisation, there were also doctors who colluded with husbands to basically force women into "treatments" such as rest cures. You can read The Yellow Wallpaper as a fictional example of a very real phenomenon.

Another way inconvenient women were controlled by fathers and husbands in the good old days was just by the threat that they could be chucked in a mental institution, or have their children taken away from them, or be put on rest cure etc etc. They will have heard about it happening to others and those things would put the fear of God into many women.

I think this history is just about as bad as people make out, and certainly very real. The fact that this history is gendered is also real.

To bring it back to thread, I agree with other poster, we shouldn't necessarily romanticise the good old days.

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 11:30

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 09:22

https://www.ashfordstpeters.nhs.uk/19th-century-mental-health

https://www.valmcbeath.com/victorian-era-england-1837-1901/victorian-era-lunatic-asylums/

We do a serious injustice to the women who came before us if we dismiss or minimise their suffering.

'We do a serious injustice to the women who came before us if we dismiss or minimise their suffering.'
I completely agree with this sentiment.
Unfortunately, another way of dismissing women's suffering is the spreading of misinformation and half truths.
As I understand the situation, two doctors were required to sign a committal to a mental establishment. In the 19th c. there were about four cases which attracted enormous public interest, where the husband had bribed two doctors to sign such a certificate. These cases were seen as scandalous. As I understand it, in every case, the unfortunate woman did in fact escape the mental institution. No doubt, partly as a result of these notorious cases, the law was changed around 1890, so that an order was required from a judge before an individual could be committed to a mental institution.
I understand that men could also fall victim to this, when they were heirs to money/property which someone else wished to acquire for themselves.
This does not equate to 'men could ...'. This was always seen as abhorrent and criminal.
I am convinced that the history of mental institutions is largely one of appalling suffering with some truly awful individuals, as well as some outstandingly great ones.
But I don't think it helps to spread half truths.
I'm sure I've got some of this wrong, but at least it's a bit more accurate.

LittleFootprintsInSand · 02/09/2026 09:22

SixtySomething · 02/09/2026 09:11

I think women being put away upon their husband’s signature is something made much of these days, but I would love to find out the hard facts of it.
i’m sure it would have been seen as abuse at the time. For starters you needed to be able to pay for it.

https://www.ashfordstpeters.nhs.uk/19th-century-mental-health

https://www.valmcbeath.com/victorian-era-england-1837-1901/victorian-era-lunatic-asylums/

We do a serious injustice to the women who came before us if we dismiss or minimise their suffering.

19th Century Mental Health

Ashford and St. Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust serves a population of more than 410,000 people living in north Surrey.

https://www.ashfordstpeters.nhs.uk/19th-century-mental-health

Swipe left for the next trending thread