S. Weir Mitchell was the "noted specialist in nervous diseases" (para. 4) whom Gilman mentions. Yet she does not identify him by name. Why not, do you think? Some historians argue that, contrary to Gilman’s claim here, Mitchell continued to believe his "rest cure" valid. Does this issue of fact matter to your judgment of her piece? Why, or why not?

In her story "The Yellow Wallpaper," Charlotte Perkins Gilman talks about the effect of the "rest cure." This popular strategy to dealing with "emotional problems" in women drives her character insane.

This was a real treatment that S. Weir Mitchell recommended. The most likely reason why Gilman did not refer to the doctor by name was because he enjoyed a great deal of popularity and prestige. Gilman might have believed that people were not going to be willing to listen to her if she went against the recommendations of a well-known doctor.

The issue of fact does not affect my judgement of her piece. In her piece, Gilman is explaining how she felt when she had to undergo this treatment. Even if the treatment was suitable to others, I believe it is important to value her own personal experience and testimony.

the correct order is:

you're your own worst enemy:

they're going to say what they say, but

their opinions aren't holding you

back. it's your self-defeatist

attitude that's keeping your work

from getting its due.

what makes a hero is someone who tries and acres and then heps to save people