Mar 29, 2011

Morality, Injustice and Ignorant Advocates

For phase three I decided to look in more depth at Justina’s letter in response to Miss Garrett’s defense of the Contagious Diseases Act. I examined strategies and tropes throughout Justina’s text that were common in female public discourse.

Justina’s letters, published in the Pall Mall Gazette, are written in a very matter-of-fact tone, which get directly to the point. The concise manner in which she writes makes her argument clear and allows her to communicate her points of view effectively to her audience, without causing them to read between the lines or feel the need to skim over irrelevant details.

Justina’s response is written in direct reply to Miss Garrett’s, which is demonstrated through her specific references to Garrett’s letter throughout the text. Justina frequently quotes Garrett and then sets out to disprove what Garrett has said, using statistical evidence, quotes from alternative “expert” sources, as well as discrediting sources used by Garrett. The way in which Justina is so easily able to discredit Garrett sees her demonstrate that it is harmful to both society, and in this instance particularly to children and women, to simply accept and abide by what we are told to be true. Like many women writers, Justina demonstrates that in order to make valid arguments and gain a comprehensive understanding of policy, it is crucial that one conducts independent research, and examines issues thoroughly. In her reply, Justina’s ability to frequently disprove “evidence” presented by Miss Garrett, portrays Garrett’s argument as ignorant and naive.

Justina spends much of her time comparing the Contagious Diseases Act in the United Kingdom with similar laws on the continent, particularly in Paris and areas of Belgium. She writes of how such an act is too difficult to successfully enforce as intended, using statistical evidence from other areas of Europe to support her argument. This part of Justina’s argument is situated near the beginning and middle of her letter, and it is not until the reader delves in further that they are able to read of her opinion regarding the injustice such an act has upon both women and children. I believe a reason for this is that she is attempting to convince a male audience at the beginning of her letter that her response is valid and worth reading, thus gaining their respect. This was a trait typical of many women writers of the time (such as Makin, who felt the need to take on a male persona).

Justina states that Garrett’s belief that the Act is fair to women is somewhat ridiculous, and that it in fact “may endanger the liberty of women by placing them in the power of the police” (27). She continues to defend this point using evidence of a number of “respectable women on the continent and in England, who had been arrested due to such acts,” (28). It is evident from her tone that Justina feels passionately about the injustice of the act towards women, who are kept in hospitals until “cleared” of disease, and required to be checked for disease in order to protect the males in society, who are often the cause for the spread of such diseases. It is through this aspect of her reply that Justina truly demonstrates her feminine style and advocates for women’s rights, claiming that the existence of the Contagious Diseases Act “is at once a stinging proof of the still protracted social and political subjection of my sex and a galling insult that cannot fail to rankle in our hearts so long as those Act remain on the statute books,” (28).

I find the morality of the act, (especially in its treatment of women) that Justina brings into question extremely interesting, even more so due to Miss Garrett’s contrasting views. I believe the difference in opinion between the two writers can be applied to women across society at that time- those who were prepared to question people with social and political power, and those who simply accepted male rule. I think it is people such as Miss Garrett that many of the women writers we have studied thus far were writing for, to motivate them to develop and demonstrate to them, an alternative way of looking at society and women’s role within it.

From my research into the Contagious Diseases Act thus far, the issue of morality between men and women has been a major focus, particularly the concept of women as being morally superior to men. While I am unsure as to exactly what I want to focus on for my final paper, I am also increasingly interested in the issue of prostitution at the time, and how it affected varying areas of society- such as women and children. My phase two research took me to a series of articles in the Pall Mall Gazette which looked at child prostitution, and I am also interested in researching this further.

2 comments:

Alyssa said...

Charlotte,

I enjoyed reading your post and I think that you did a great job delving into Justina's letter. I am also working with the London Lowlife collection, but since I chose to focus on Malleson's letter rather than Justina's, it's interesting to read more detail about Justina's letter.

I like the way that you analyzed the reason behind Justina's mode of argument, in that she was trying to gain respect from men so that they would continue reading her response, and I also like the way that you make valuable connections between her letter and class discussions/readings, like when you refer to Makin.

I am also going to be focusing on morality in the final paper, and I think that looking into child prostitution is a great way to find out more about the topic in relation to morality. In the Pall Mall Gazette in the issue from August 7, 1885, there is an extensive article about how the age of consent was being formally bumped up at 16, then 18, in an attempt to stamp out child prostitution. This article may be helpful to you in your research.

It sounds like one of the questions you may be going towards is: Are women morally superior to men? If so, why did they take part in prostitution? These questions may lead you to a broader discovery about the social structure of the time and how it dictated morality.

Good luck with your final paper! I enjoyed reading your post.

Lauryn. said...

I really enjoyed the part of this post were you discussed the idea that Justina is writing for women like Miss Garrett. And i believe that you are correct in this idea. I, like Alyssa, looked at Mallesons response so seeing this about Justina is interesting and informative. And the idea of morality seems to be a big part of both of the Reply's. I feel that if you were to look into child prostitution maybe you could also look into child prostitution in France and Belgium since the laws there are brought up in Justina's response, and then you could compare further.

Post a Comment