First learning about the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1866 via women’s written responses of disapproval provides a unique perspective into the importance of the legislation. The reader does not know all the provisions of the act and cannot interpret the law because they do not know the specific language used. This is helpful in some ways, because it allows the reader to simulate how people of that time period may have learned and reacted to the acts. As noted by the letter In Answer to The Papers of Miss Garrett and Mr. Berkeley Hill, the Contagious Diseases Acts were not widely published for the public to see, so published letters and other papers being circulated about the acts may have been the closest some ever got to seeing the legislation for themselves. Women’s various reactions to the Contagious Diseases Acts show many points of contention. The two letters and paper that I read showed a clear agreement between the three women about whether the legislation should pass, but for different reasons. The consensus is that while venereal disease is a nation-wide problem needing to be addressed, this particular solution would not be helpful.
The writer of A Few Words on the Contagious Diseases Act: In Answer to the Papers of Miss Garrett addresses first the issue of access. Miss Garrett published in The Pall MallGazzette her support of the legislation while the general public did not have access to the acts themselves. The writer thinks the public should be able to read the documents since they pertain directly to them. This is worth noting because we live in a current day and age that allows greater access to our politicians and political debates, so this helped me to better contextualize the discourse.
The writer points out something all three writers agree on, which is that the Contagious Disease Acts punish women who actively participate in prostitution and they do nothing in terms of punishing the men who purchase these services. She argues that while many, including Miss Garrett, say these laws are meant to help eradicate VD they are really rooted in beliefs about the immorality of women. Women would be required, if the law is passed, to be under surveillance if they are determined to be a prostitute, and would have to undergo medical screenings and treatment to ensure they will not pass on VD to the men they interact with. The focus is on the health of women in only as it affects the health of men.
The writer also sees the roots of prostitution to be much farther spreading than just morality. She briefly gives an overview of the problems facing women who need to support themselves, namely that they are unskilled, not properly educated and will not be hired. She emphasizes, “For we must not forget that the women do not adopt this evil life merely for pleasure or sensual indulgence, as the men who share it do, but for hire, for profit, as Miss Garrett observes,” (3). The writer complicates the morally-based argument of Garrett and others by humanizing the women these acts affect. Other strategies such as this are used by the other two writers as well.
Justina echoes many of the first writer’s sentiments saying the acts would be an “outrageous violation of women for the sake of the health of men,” (Justina’s Letters in Reply to Miss Garrett’s Defense of the Contagious Disease Acts, 28). She sees the acts to be implicitly supporting prostitution as it only requires half of the participants in prostitution to be under surveillance and forced to be examined for VD: women. The blame for prostitution is placed on women and not the men who also participate. Justina also notes the inaccuracy of Miss Garrett’s arguments based on so-called statistical analysis of the effectiveness of similar laws in France, and writes about the messages the legislation would be sending to young girls. She argues the government would be allowing systematic degradation of women, and would perpetuate the image of sex without affection.
Rounding out the three pieces is Mrs. W.T. Malleson’s A Reply to Miss Garrett’s Letter in the “Pall Mall Gazette.” She points out issues with the acts similar to the ones proposed by the other women, but is different from them because she recognizes two positive effects of the passing of the acts: they would put prostitutes into contact with “kind” people, perhaps for the first time in their lives, and the acts give provisions for women to be treated for VD, because many hospitals at the time were not equipped to treat women. She sums up the sentiments presented in all three arguments when she asserts that legislation will not make a society moral, social change will only come after public opinion changes. All three women acknowledge the need to address prostitution and venereal disease, but they disagree with Miss Garrett in that they believe the solution should not come from governmental force, but rather a change in commonly held values. All three would certainly agree 19th century Englishmen and women need to focus on the root of the problems: sexual inequality.
Questions to Consider:
Why would it be difficult to define what prostitution was, as W.T. Malleson suggests?
What were sexual relationships like between men and women, whether married or single?
What repercussions were there in the Contagious Diseases Acts for the men who paid for sex, if any?
What were options for women who had to support themselves? What type of work and pay would be common?
2 comments:
i liked how you mentioned the similar laws in France, i forgot to do so in mine. I remember there was something mentioned about men being treated like women in France what i cant remember was the context in which it was said. do you remember?
I also have looked some stuff concerning the Contagious Diseases Act and it doesn't mention anything i could see about men being punished for paying for sex at least with in the limits of the Act. Whether its a law on its own I'm not sure.
My post was over the free thought collection by Annie Besant, and I found an interesting link between these two collections. One of the major issues Besant addresses in her pamphlet "Is the Bible Indictable?" is the discrimination show towards members of the lower class when it came to information distribution. Expensive medical books describing birth control were not charged with obscenity, but a cheap pamphlet (easily accessible to the poor) was. It was if the poor didn't have the right to the medical knowledge that the rich did. It seems the authors in your collection had the same purpose as Besant-- to provide helpful information to an audience that otherwise may not see it. Not only this, but they all seem to encourage their audience to take the knowledge they've gained and enact it in the political sphere.
It makes me wonder if there is a similar comparison of the divide between the rich and the poor and the one between men and women during the 19th century. It certainly seems the poor are discriminated against in regards to information access, and your collection goes to show that being poor and a woman (such as prostitutes) leaves you in quite a disadvantaged position in society.
Post a Comment