I've never read something mysoginic written by Freud, but I have not read anything of Freud. I think that the mysoginic side have been attributed to Freud for: 1) the notion of " penis envy". Reading his last formulation I find that i" penis envy " was simply corresponding to male fear of a passive position with another male. 2) his theory that feminine sexuality would develop from a "phallic phase" common in both sex but achieving in a different destiny for anatomical reasons. The theory in my view did not put female on a lower level, but underlined a different development. Clitoridean and vaginal orgasm are the same orgasm in the female, indeed, triggered in different ways, but Freud observations about that "clitoridean orgasm" has been, in my view, a honest and concerned formulation, made without mysoginic intentions.

On the other hand Freud has been the first ( with Breuer ) to begin to listen with attention and respect women, in his study on hysteria and leaving them talking to him without judging them. I can give you bibliography references about my statements. In any case with Karen Horney, for example, began a critical vision of freudian formulations that I respect.

I've never read something mysoginic written by Freud, but I have not read anything of Freud. I think that the mysoginic side have been attributed to Freud for: 1) the notion of " penis envy". Reading his last formulation I find that i" penis envy " was simply corresponding to male fear of a passive position with another male. 2) his theory that feminine sexuality would develop from a "phallic phase" common in both sex but achieving in a different destiny for anatomical reasons. The theory in my view did not put female on a lower level, but underlined a different development. Clitoridean and vaginal orgasm are the same orgasm in the female, indeed, triggered in different ways, but Freud observations about that "clitoridean orgasm" has been, in my view, a honest and concerned formulation, made without mysoginic intentions.

On the other hand Freud has been the first ( with Breuer ) to begin to listen with attention and respect women, in his study on hysteria and leaving them talking to him without judging them. I can give you bibliography references about my statements. In any case with Karen Horney, for example, began a critical vision of freudian formulations that I respect.

Thank you very much indeed Mr Giovanni Portuesi. But really I got shocked when I read Dora's case. In that case, Freud, in my view, degraded women(Dora and her mother).

I remember well the debate over Dora case among my training analist group. Psychoanalyst women felt that Freud. "Used" Dora. My feeling was that Freud tried with honesty to help Dora, even if jr was interested in her case for a scientific purpose. From a point of view of the relationship between women and men, this case is very important ( this is a modern point of view), because there are many significative topics. If you are interested, I can give a look to the case and confront with people and you here about Freud behaviour as a male, as a doctor and as adult in this case.

For the moment I would like to stress these points: 1) Freud made some errors in that case. He admit them and discuss them. See in the postfaction : probably transfert analisis was born there, in my view 2) Look for a note about Miss K: Freud says : I forgot the influence of Miss K over Dora 3) Remember the point where Miss Dora tell Freud that she want to leave analysis with him and Freud answer was : you can leave me whenever you want but today we will work together for the last time. Look for the result of this ( memorable ) session ( by the way, I found disgusting the idea of firing a maid because she has been harassed by the master, present here in Freud and in Dora ).

Last: many very qualified d psychoanalyst today dont agree with my point of view and your point of view is common among modern analyst. But I enjoy discuss the matter without prejudice.

I would suggest you to read also the meeting of Freud with the 18 yo maid, asking to him to see her for a problem, in a mountain "walk " of young Freud. The name of the girl was Franziska, it seems to me and you can find it in the book ( Italian title ) " Studi sull ' isteria".

I think the Dora case was and is scandalous, and evidence of a male therapist manipulating a situation and a patient. If my memory holds, Freud assumed the viewpoint of the older men around Dora, her father and father's friend, and that by rejecting the father's friend (husband of the woman the father was having an affair with) she was displaying her illness.

Sorry Giovanni, appalling conduct by Freud. Manipulating a patient in the same way the other older men around her were doing. (Have I got the right one here-long time since I dealt with this shocking incident?)

Thank you for your answers.

Added to my answer-when discussing and analysing cases Freud rarely if ever considered the role of the mother. He saw problems as between father and daughter or son and father. One case, it might be the Dora one, or the first talking cure break through, the mother's role as later historians discovered in the daughters life was dominant and yet Freud barely mentions her.

Thank you very much Dear Stanely Wilkin.

Interested

Anyway Freud had some scientific purposes in writing Dora case and this scientific interest gave a huge contribution to improve the feminine condition. More, in the Dora case Freud talks extensively of his errors, and that it' s not so frequent in psychoanalitical literature and i I dont see at all Freud manipulating a patient in any case. The mother role it ' s not so stressed by Freud, but he simply declared " ...it' s from Mother that baby learn to love" elsewhere. Does anyone declared that in scientific world, before? In any case the mother role in Dora problems can be suspected also in the role of "Miss K". Freud declared: I did not pay enough attention to the role of Miss K.

If we want to have a polemical allure in the discussion we should add that sexual activity of "Miss K" was not so for free ( but at the moment I dont have a reference for this gossip, psychoanalysis is plenty of gossip...).

If Freud did not manipulate Dora, then why did Dora quit the treatment?

Good question. Obviously there are always many reasons for our behaviour and one cannot pick just the the interesting one for one own purpose. Anyway Freud talk about " resistance in the transfert" ( with him ) and there is the note about Miss L role on that. I can agree with you and @Wiking that a reason could have been the feeling of being manipulate ( but Freud took the last session with Dora to understand the reasons of Dora quitting ).

Anyway I think that unfortunately Dora (and Freud) lost a good opportunity of understanding themselves and each other.

That'right both of them lost the opportunity of understanding themselves.Thus, we lost, too.