Correction: a total of three down-vots by crypto-feminists against the moderator for posting truth.

They got you too.

poche says: They got you too.

They were stumbling and tripping over each other to get to me. LOL

The etymology of the word "hysteria"  is available in countless reference and historical works.  I quoted Wikipedia simply for  convenience.

The word itself, along with the idea that problems with the uterus cause women's medical issues, goes back to ancient Greece.  There is nothing that Freud could have written that could change this fact.

If you think there is something in this book that supports your incorrect claim about the word originating in the 1800s, then you should give a quote of it.  Obviously I am not going to waste my time reading an over 500 page book trying to find whatever it was that you misunderstood to make this error.  

If you taught a university course, you ought to understand the basics of presenting evidence to support one's position.

Sorry Jayne, but googling wikipedia is not "presenting evidence." When I have time, I will respond. Let us pray that God will keep us spiritually safe during this challenging time.

Sorry Jayne, but googling wikipedia is not "presenting evidence."

Citing quotes from Wikipedia, while not ideal, is a form of presenting evidence, unlike saying "get back to me after you read this book."  You have not given any reason to think that anything that I have written is incorrect.  You just automatically dismiss it because I cited Wikipedia.  Your own quote below, however, confirms one of the points that I made.

Freud . . . believed that little girls often experienced sɛҳuąƖ abuse, since most of his patients were predominantly women and consistently reported childhood instances of sɛҳuąƖ molestation.

 Many of Freud's patients suffered from a common Victorian diagnosis, hysteria. Since his hysterical patients repeatedly reported sɛҳuąƖ abuse, most often naming their fathers as the abusers, Freud drew a causal connection between sɛҳuąƖ abuse and neurosis. This became the frame for the seduction theory, in which he pointed to a direct connection between sɛҳuąƖ abuse in childhood and adult hysteria.

. . .  this repeated and persistent incrimination of fathers by his patients made him uneasy, and led him to abandon the seduction theory. More at ease with the fantasy rather than reality of sɛҳuąƖ abuse, Freud was even more comfortable when he could name the mother rather than the father as the seducer. Hence, the "Oedipal complex" came into fruition.

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/The_Freudian_Coverup

The quote above does not support your claim that I was objecting to.  You said:

The reason they have the same root is that in the 1800s, the men who were doctors and lawyers did not want their sɛҳuąƖ assaults on girls and women to become known. So when girls or women attempted to disclose their sɛҳuąƖ assaults, the M.D.s said the woman accuser had a "roaming uterus" and the solution was to perform a hysterectomy.

Freud's theory about sɛҳuąƖ abuse being the cause of hysteria (which I already mentioned in an earlier post) has nothing to do with the reason that the words "hysteria" and "hysterectomy" come from the same root.  They share a root because people believed, long before the 1800s, that hysteria (which comes from the Greek word for uterus) was caused by the uterus.  Hysterectomy means removal of the uterus.

Not did Freud's theory say anything about doctors and lawyers trying to cover up their sɛҳuąƖ assaults on girls and women.  Freud thought originally that childhood sɛҳuąƖ assaults which cause hysteria were usually by the women's fathers or other relatives.  He later, however, abandoned this theory.  His later position was that imagined sɛҳuąƖ acts in childhood could also cause hysteria so it was not necessarily caused by sɛҳuąƖ abuse.  

Freud based his theories on a limited number of case studies, too few to be statistically significant.  His thoughts on the subject tell us little about the actual incidence of sɛҳuąƖ abuse. And nothing about the reason for the words "hysteria" and "hysterectomy" to share a root.

. And nothing about the reason for the words "hysteria" and "hysterectomy" to share a root.

The root for both words is similar but for different reasons.
The ancients used their word for "uterus" for the word we now call "hysteria."
Not until the 1800s did medicine, to their great embarrassment, come up with the notion that a "roaming uterus" was the underlying cause of "hysteria." That era was when they decided to heal "hysteria" by butchering womens' bodies with hysterectomy (removal of the roaming uterus.)
Freud opposed this when he wrote "Etiology of Hysteria." However, as he explains to his friend Fleiss in his letters, he was not prepared for the attacks against him for disclosing child sɛҳuąƖ abuse.
See this

Sigmund Freud and the Cover-Up of "The Aetiology of Hysteria"
by Jonathan Eisen

In 1896, the young psychiatrist Sigmund Freud presented the first major paper he had ever written to his colleagues at Vienna's Society for Psychiatry and Neurology. Freud considered that his paper, entitled "The Aetiology of Hysteria," was of the utmost importance, since it proposed what he believed to be an irrefutable cause for the neuroses suffered by many of his patients. Quite simply, when listening sympathetically to his women patients, Freud had heard that as children they had suffered sɛҳuąƖ assaults, and he believed that it was these acts of violence which had led to the victims' mental illness later in life.

The point of the paper was that sɛҳuąƖly abused children, many of whom had come from "respectable" middle class homes, displayed significant "hysterias" later on in life—an observation that today would pass as obvious to the point of banality, but something that in 1896 provoked a backlash among Freud's older colleagues.

All the strange conditions under which the incongruous pair continue their love relations—on the one hand the adult, who cannot escape his share in the mutual dependence necessarily entailed by a sɛҳuąƖ relationship, and who is at the same time armed with complete authority and the right to punish, and can exchange the one role for the other to the uninhibited satisfaction of his whims, and on the other hand the child, who in his helplessness is at the mercy of this arbitrary use of power, who is prematurely aroused to every kind of sensibility and exposed to every sort of disappointment, and whose exercise of the sɛҳuąƖ performances assigned to him is often interrupted by his imperfect control of his natural needs—all these grotesque and yet tragic disparities distinctly mark the later development of the individual and of his neurosis, with countless permanent effects which deserve to be traced in the greatest detail.

In fact, as author and former Freud Archives Director Jeffrey Masson discussed at some length in his controversial bestseller The Assault On Truth: Freud's Suppression Of The Seduction Theory (1984), the pressure that was brought to bear on Freud was strong enough to make him change his mind completely about the validity of the sɛҳuąƖ assault theory. In a dramatic about-face, he formulated his "seduction theory," in which children themselves became the seducers rather than the victims.

Freud's inaugural paper, "The Aetiology of Hysteria" was singled out from all the other papers presented in Vienna in 1896 as the one paper that was not published in the "Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift," the peer journal for the newly forming school of psychoanalysis. Unlike all the other papers delivered, there was no summary and no discussion of Freud's work.

According to Masson, Freud wrote a letter to his close friend Wilhelm Fliess that,

    "A lecture on the etiology of hysteria at the Psychiatric Society met with an icy reception... and from Krafft-Ebing the strange comment: It sounds like a scientific fairy tale. And this after one has demonstrated to them a solution to a more than thousand year old problem, a 'source of the Nile.'"

According to Masson,

    "The prospect of being ostracized by medical society was negligible in the face of his knowledge that he had discovered an important truth."

At this point Freud believed what his patients were telling them, namely that they had been sɛҳuąƖly assaulted, usually by their fathers, but sometimes by their mothers, and were living in shame and pain and self-loathing.

    ... The behavior of patients while they are reproducing these infantile experiences is in every respect incompatible with the assumption that the scenes are anything less than a reality which is being felt with distress and reproduced with the greatest reluctance.

Masson states that Freud went to some pains to assert his own objectivity and admitted that "he too had to overcome resistances before accepting the unpalatable truth," and was therefore somewhat prepared for his colleagues' negative reaction to his paper.

When the reaction did come it was swift and severe, and conveyed the impression that unless Freud recanted, his future as a psychotherapist would be in jeopardy.

    "I am as isolated as you could wish me to be: the word has been given out to abandon me, and a void is forming around me," Freud wrote to Fleiss.

And slowly began the transformation that would result in his repudiation of the earlier theory of sɛҳuąƖ trauma, to be replaced by the convoluted theory of the infants' fantasy of sɛҳuąƖly seducing the parent.

Freud's recantation reads like something out of Stalin's trials of the 1930s when Freud writes of his patients .. .

    I believed (their) stories, and consequently supposed that I had discovered the roots of the subsequent neuroses in these experiences of sɛҳuąƖ seduction in childhood ... If the reader feels inclined to shake his head at my credulity, I cannot altogether blame him.

In fact Freud went so far as to say that

    "... I was at last obliged to recognize that these scenes of seduction had never taken place, and that they were only fantasies which my patients had made up." In other words, his patients had lied to him, and he had been naive to believe them. Rather than having been victims of sɛҳuąƖ advances from their parents, they had made up stories "to cover up the recollection of infantile sɛҳuąƖ activity ..."

He continues:

    "The grain of truth contained in this fantasy lies in the fact that the father, by way of his innocent caresses in earliest childhood, has actually awakened the little girl's sɛҳuąƖity (the same thing applies to the little boy and his mother)."

According to Masson,

    "giving up his 'erroneous' view allowed Freud to participate again in a medical society that had earlier ostracized him. In 1905 Freud publicly retracted the seduction theory. By 1908, respected physicians had joined Freud: Paul Federn, Isidor Sadger, Sandor Ferenczi, Max Eitingon, Karl Jung... The psychoanalytic movement had been born but an important truth had been left behind."

When Masson went on to publish his beliefs about why Freud had abandoned the seduction theory, the psychoanalytic community did not at all take kindly to his indictment of the foundations of Freudian psycho-analysis. The Assault On Truth became itself the object of derision and pressure from the psychoanalytic community which refused to believe the evidence that Masson was publishing.

The first indication of trouble ahead came from Freud's daughter, Anna Freud, who voiced her displeasure when Masson began pressing her for the reasons why the letters quoted above had never been published. But the full fury of the psychoanalytic establishment was to come after the publication of preliminary papers divulging the author's discoveries, particularly those surrounding Freud's studies at the Paris Morgue in the 1880s. There he was likely to have witnessed autopsies performed on children who had been sɛҳuąƖly mutilated and murdered by adults.

What Masson was doing in his research for The Assault On Truth was nothing less than uncovering evidence so damning that it called into question the whole foundation of psychoanalysis itself. Anna Freud virtually admitted that she had deleted her father's crucial letters dealing with the seduction theory and childhood rape. Masson wrote:

I began to notice what appeared to be a pattern in the omissions made by Anna Freud in the original, unabridged edition. In the letters written after September 1897 (when Freud was supposed to have "given up" his "seduction" theory), all the case histories dealing with sɛҳuąƖ seduction of children were excised.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/supressed_inventions/suppressed_inventions16.htm

The root for both words is similar but for different reasons.
The ancients used their word for "uterus" for the word we now call "hysteria."
Not until the 1800s did medicine, to their great embarrassment, come up with the notion that a "roaming uterus" was the underlying cause of "hysteria." That era was when they decided to heal "hysteria" by butchering womens' bodies with hysterectomy (removal of the roaming uterus.)
Freud opposed this when he wrote "Etiology of Hysteria." However, as he explains to his friend Fleiss in his letters, he was not prepared for the attacks against him for disclosing child sɛҳuąƖ abuse.
See this

Sigmund Freud and the Cover-Up of "The Aetiology of Hysteria"
by Jonathan Eisen

In 1896, the young psychiatrist Sigmund Freud presented the first major paper he had ever written to his colleagues at Vienna's Society for Psychiatry and Neurology. Freud considered that his paper, entitled "The Aetiology of Hysteria," was of the utmost importance, since it proposed what he believed to be an irrefutable cause for the neuroses suffered by many of his patients. Quite simply, when listening sympathetically to his women patients, Freud had heard that as children they had suffered sɛҳuąƖ assaults, and he believed that it was these acts of violence which had led to the victims' mental illness later in life.

The point of the paper was that sɛҳuąƖly abused children, many of whom had come from "respectable" middle class homes, displayed significant "hysterias" later on in life—an observation that today would pass as obvious to the point of banality, but something that in 1896 provoked a backlash among Freud's older colleagues.

All the strange conditions under which the incongruous pair continue their love relations—on the one hand the adult, who cannot escape his share in the mutual dependence necessarily entailed by a sɛҳuąƖ relationship, and who is at the same time armed with complete authority and the right to punish, and can exchange the one role for the other to the uninhibited satisfaction of his whims, and on the other hand the child, who in his helplessness is at the mercy of this arbitrary use of power, who is prematurely aroused to every kind of sensibility and exposed to every sort of disappointment, and whose exercise of the sɛҳuąƖ performances assigned to him is often interrupted by his imperfect control of his natural needs—all these grotesque and yet tragic disparities distinctly mark the later development of the individual and of his neurosis, with countless permanent effects which deserve to be traced in the greatest detail.

In fact, as author and former Freud Archives Director Jeffrey Masson discussed at some length in his controversial bestseller The Assault On Truth: Freud's Suppression Of The Seduction Theory (1984), the pressure that was brought to bear on Freud was strong enough to make him change his mind completely about the validity of the sɛҳuąƖ assault theory. In a dramatic about-face, he formulated his "seduction theory," in which children themselves became the seducers rather than the victims.

Freud's inaugural paper, "The Aetiology of Hysteria" was singled out from all the other papers presented in Vienna in 1896 as the one paper that was not published in the "Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift," the peer journal for the newly forming school of psychoanalysis. Unlike all the other papers delivered, there was no summary and no discussion of Freud's work.

According to Masson, Freud wrote a letter to his close friend Wilhelm Fliess that,

    "A lecture on the etiology of hysteria at the Psychiatric Society met with an icy reception... and from Krafft-Ebing the strange comment: It sounds like a scientific fairy tale. And this after one has demonstrated to them a solution to a more than thousand year old problem, a 'source of the Nile.'"

According to Masson,

    "The prospect of being ostracized by medical society was negligible in the face of his knowledge that he had discovered an important truth."

At this point Freud believed what his patients were telling them, namely that they had been sɛҳuąƖly assaulted, usually by their fathers, but sometimes by their mothers, and were living in shame and pain and self-loathing.

    ... The behavior of patients while they are reproducing these infantile experiences is in every respect incompatible with the assumption that the scenes are anything less than a reality which is being felt with distress and reproduced with the greatest reluctance.

Masson states that Freud went to some pains to assert his own objectivity and admitted that "he too had to overcome resistances before accepting the unpalatable truth," and was therefore somewhat prepared for his colleagues' negative reaction to his paper.

When the reaction did come it was swift and severe, and conveyed the impression that unless Freud recanted, his future as a psychotherapist would be in jeopardy.

    "I am as isolated as you could wish me to be: the word has been given out to abandon me, and a void is forming around me," Freud wrote to Fleiss.

And slowly began the transformation that would result in his repudiation of the earlier theory of sɛҳuąƖ trauma, to be replaced by the convoluted theory of the infants' fantasy of sɛҳuąƖly seducing the parent.

Freud's recantation reads like something out of Stalin's trials of the 1930s when Freud writes of his patients .. .

    I believed (their) stories, and consequently supposed that I had discovered the roots of the subsequent neuroses in these experiences of sɛҳuąƖ seduction in childhood ... If the reader feels inclined to shake his head at my credulity, I cannot altogether blame him.

In fact Freud went so far as to say that

    "... I was at last obliged to recognize that these scenes of seduction had never taken place, and that they were only fantasies which my patients had made up." In other words, his patients had lied to him, and he had been naive to believe them. Rather than having been victims of sɛҳuąƖ advances from their parents, they had made up stories "to cover up the recollection of infantile sɛҳuąƖ activity ..."

He continues:

    "The grain of truth contained in this fantasy lies in the fact that the father, by way of his innocent caresses in earliest childhood, has actually awakened the little girl's sɛҳuąƖity (the same thing applies to the little boy and his mother)."

According to Masson,

    "giving up his 'erroneous' view allowed Freud to participate again in a medical society that had earlier ostracized him. In 1905 Freud publicly retracted the seduction theory. By 1908, respected physicians had joined Freud: Paul Federn, Isidor Sadger, Sandor Ferenczi, Max Eitingon, Karl Jung... The psychoanalytic movement had been born but an important truth had been left behind."

When Masson went on to publish his beliefs about why Freud had abandoned the seduction theory, the psychoanalytic community did not at all take kindly to his indictment of the foundations of Freudian psycho-analysis. The Assault On Truth became itself the object of derision and pressure from the psychoanalytic community which refused to believe the evidence that Masson was publishing.

The first indication of trouble ahead came from Freud's daughter, Anna Freud, who voiced her displeasure when Masson began pressing her for the reasons why the letters quoted above had never been published. But the full fury of the psychoanalytic establishment was to come after the publication of preliminary papers divulging the author's discoveries, particularly those surrounding Freud's studies at the Paris Morgue in the 1880s. There he was likely to have witnessed autopsies performed on children who had been sɛҳuąƖly mutilated and murdered by adults.

What Masson was doing in his research for The Assault On Truth was nothing less than uncovering evidence so damning that it called into question the whole foundation of psychoanalysis itself. Anna Freud virtually admitted that she had deleted her father's crucial letters dealing with the seduction theory and childhood rape. Masson wrote:

I began to notice what appeared to be a pattern in the omissions made by Anna Freud in the original, unabridged edition. In the letters written after September 1897 (when Freud was supposed to have "given up" his "seduction" theory), all the case histories dealing with sɛҳuąƖ seduction of children were excised.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/supressed_inventions/suppressed_inventions16.htm

For Jayne who did not read it.