I think your comment on the passive mindset is interesting.

I suspect women didn't form academies, guilds and the like because they were prevented by the demands of keeping home and hearth, and by societies' tendencies to view any congregation of women as either a brothel or a coven.

While many women did have professional careers and talents (see the "Uppity Women" books by historian Vikki Leon for starters), many were not recognized as women, or were marginalized.

A few scattered (and obvious) examples:

Artemesia Gentileschi was raped by her painting instructor, and denied entrance to the Academy.

The Bronte sisters wrote under male pseudonyms until they were established as authors.

Sarah Bishop, bartender in Salem, was hanged as a witch.

Jeanne d'Arc was burned at the stake (ostensibly for witchcraft).

Professional actresses were considered prostitutes. To use the active voice: men and women considered professional women of most any kind "loose" at best.

And the women who managed to have a professional career without public scandal? Did so by quietly going about their business. Since most other women were at home, tending the babies and sweeping the floor, and many of them were illiterate, how was one to get the word out to join the all-women-painting and sculpture academy, or the all-women-surgical-school?

So women poured their creative efforts into quilts, cushions, meals and clothes. Or wrote or worked, knowing they were the village oddball, village slut, or village witch.

The 19th century created more demand for labor for women to enter the workforce. From there, better communication, better access to jobs, education and health care, better technology, and greater demands for a larger and larger workforce slllllooooowly opened more doors. Women went to wk in significant numbers when the market allowed them to, and when society (made up of men and women) couldn't refuse them any more.

So, while it's too bad women didn't demand equal access to professional life in previous centuries, isn't that a little naive, putting a 20th century mindset on a 18th centurty (or pick an era) culture? It probably took millenia to divide labor into separate, gendered spheres. It doesn't surprise me it's taking a few centuries to recalibrate our thinking.

I agree, plenty of men were burned at stakes throughout history. And, yes, most men were busy tilling the fields, tending the sheep, etc. But men as a segment of society had more opportunities than women as a segment of society.

And I certainly don't mean to say "men and only men prevented women from doing X". Most men, and most women, believed that women should stay at home, etc.

As another poster pointed out, yes, there are plenty of examples of women who did their own thing. But they were *exceptional* (as in exceptions to the rule). That's why we note them. These women, by and large, would not or could not marry and raise children. They were sometimes educated in defiance of common cultural practice. Or they were forceful enough personalities to keep their footing in a "man's world" (though I hate that term).

But, when a person's worth to a society is literally in her body: her sexual purity until marriage, her unconditional fidelity during marriage, and her ability to breed children, *most* of the population isn't going to risk the label of "whore" to have a career. And let's face it: this is an area where a double standard has, does and will probably continue to exist. Historically, a sexually pure adult male was considered unusual. A sexully impure woman was considered criminal. And, of course, prostitutes were considered "fair game" to any potential customer. So if a womn decided "I want to be a painter" and she got branded as "whore", she couldn't just toss her head and say "Who cares?" Men harassed her, women shunned her. How to paint, when no one will sut for you, and no one will buy your work, bcause you are a "whore"?

I'm not whining, I'm not saying men are bad, women are victims: this is the contract most societies made until very recently.

As for professional training/guilds, etc for women, I suppose one can look to nunneries. Some nunneries cultivated wine, created tapestries, pottery, etc. And nuns were, in theory, free from child bearing and child rearing. But the cost was, in theory, a sexual life. And of course, some nuneries, were "nunneries" if you get my drift.

I still maintain it was the rising demand for labor beyond the hearth and fields that prompted gender equality (or lurches towards it) in the workplace. Which also prompted greater freedoms andbenefits for men as well.

And I still think "Well, why didn't women just say f*ck it nd do what they want?" is the wrong question to ask. One person who stepped beyond the norm was tolerated, or subdued. A group of persons (the Hugenots, the gypsies, the Jews, the women's guild of architects) rebelling against the statusquo was a Threat to Society, and was crushed.

As your articles show, treating the mentlly ill is a complicated, frustrating and exhausting journey. We are so conditioned to expect quick fixes and panaceas, but the brain is still such a mystery to us, and the right "fix" when something is wrong is a highly individual experience.

Thank you for sharing your son's journey with us.

I wish you and your son well, with continued clear days.