Assessment of the psychotherapeutic treatment of women from a feminist perspective was virtually unheard of prior to 1968. Since that time, however, literature on the subject has abounded. Some fine examples are Naomi Weisstein's classic paper, Kinder, Kuche, Kirche as Scientific Law (1968); Gornick and Moran's Sexist Society (1971); Phyllis Chesler's Women and Madness (1972); and Psychoanalysis and Women by J. Miller (1973). These works reverberate with well-documented charges of Freudian superior to subordinate modes of treatment oriented towards keeping women in their place. As many psychiatrists have long admitted without apology, an implicit expectation of successful therapy is that the patient will continue in treatment until he or she acknowledges the correctness of the therapist's interpretations and reaches maturity. J. Frank's Persuasion and Healing (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1965) makes this point. Feminists justifiably accuse psychotherapists of defining maturity as the capacity to conform to the broad sanctions of society--in effect, reinforcement of the status quo is the underlying goal of such therapy. We can focus further objections of Freudian concepts, often rooted in our culture as truths, which have been difficult for women to refute. Psychiatric ideology makes the presentation of opposing views virtually impossible, since concepts such as projection, repression, and sublimation can be invoked to explain away or condemn the challenges raised. The whole weight of tradition is thus brought to bear against the female challenger (Roche Report, Frontiers of Psychiatry, June 1971). It should not be surprising that social scientists investigating the socialization of men and women have found that females are socialized to dependence and submissiveness.1 Langdon Longstreth, in Passivity, Dependence, and Aggression, states that the development of dependence in women follows the principle of least cultural resistance.2