Mrs. W. T. Malleson's response to Miss Garret clearly demonstrates several customary rhetorical strategies common to women's rhetoric in the mid to late 1800s.
Perhaps the most obvious is Malleson's appeals to the moral character and the Christian beliefs of her audience and country. Malleson's opening question is, "What is the ultimate object of all efforts for the amelioration of human ills?" (Malleson 1) She argues that Miss Garret has asked the wrong question. In her opinion, "Is this legislation necessary?" must take a back seat to "Is this legislation right?" (Malleson 5). The Acts promote the right of the strong to oppress the weak - a belief that causes blaming of the victims of prostitution: young girls and women caught in poverty.
Malleson appeals to logic in an extended if-then statement as she opens her piece - if the world were a simple and human beings merely animals, then Miss Garret's defense of the acts would be correct. However, the topic is complicated by the fact that humans have souls, and are spiritual beings.
On page 19, Malleson appeals to what is called expediency by Campbell in "Man Cannot Speak For Her." Although Malleson is not specifically calling for equal rights for women, she points out that the Acts' unfairness to women in perpetuating the "rightful supremacy of men's sensual needs" (19) and supporting a "worldly and materialistic" view of marrige is preventing women from completing men's character within the bonds of sacred marriage. In effect, Malleson is arguing for women's equality for the good of the human race and the good of society and families, instead of what Campbell calls the "Natural rights argument." (Campbell 298)
Malleson's arguments demonstrate common values in women's rhetoric also in the "feminine style" described by Campbell. Campbell has three main points about feminine style - that is arises from women's domestic situations, and consists of two parts: the presentation of grievances (why the woman decided to write on a certain topic) and the justification (why it was important that the author enter the public sphere even though she is a woman). (Campbell 297-298) Malleson's grievances include the Acts' unfairness to women, its support of men as victims rather than perpetrators, the Acts' consideration only for the physical manifestations of the disease, rather than the moral manifestations, and the public's (and Miss Garret's) refusal to bring Christian values into the picture. Her first justification for writing comes in the middle of page 4: "And now that we are fairly challenged to give a logical reason for our strong feeling, or to hold our tongues and let our diseased population be cured by wiser heads than ours, it becomes necessary that we should lay aside the double reserve of women, who prefer to ignore sin as ugly, and Christians who prefer to ignore religion as inconvenient, and acknowledge that we are different from our opponents less as to the mode of attaining a common object that the object we have at heart." She further justifies her writing by arguing that the effect of the Acts on marriage, family, and spiritual well-being will be terrible. Pages 17-21 are spent exploring the relationship between marriage situations and prostitution. Malleson argues that the superiority of men in legal marriages as well as marriage for materialistic purposes. "Marriage, when regarded as a safe outlet for man's animal propensities, not only fails its object, but renounces it's own sanctification, its inalienable obligations of reverent and self-forgetting love." Page 21 contains further justification - several arguments in favor of women's rhetoric for the purpose of a moral society.
My favorite argument that Malleson makes is at the bottom of page 8: "One may be pardoned for doubting that mercy which has to be forced upon its recipients by a strong police force; and it is still more difficult to recognize Christianity in a law which is based on the belief of the necessity of prostitution."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found Mrs. Malleson reply very interesting as well. I noticed, just like you did, the way she calls on morality (and the bible) to question the CDA, and I also picked up on the question of is this necessary? vs. is this right? I find the way she asks and answers those questions very interesting. She calls on morals and religion to answer is this right, and tells us that no it is not. To answer is this necessary, however, she leaves the realm of morality (in my opinion) and uses examples of places that have enacted similar laws and failed to control the spread of disease. I'm not sure if this strays from feminine style, but I think it could be argued that it does by following a more logical example based argument.
ReplyDeleteI also find the parts of this where Mrs. Malleson discusses men's role as perpetrators rather than victims. She brings up some very valid points about how the men who patronize prostitutes are enabling them, and that since men are obviously more privileged in society they should be protecting these women instead of victimizing them. I find this argument fascinating because of how it has continued to be used in modern rhetoric surrounding prostitution.
I don't think that answering the question of necessity by leaving the realm of morality is necessarily leaving feminine style as much as it is pointing out that it is (in her opinion) wrong to allow necessity to overrule ethics. Perhaps she is trying to communicate that an immoral or unjust law is never necessary.
ReplyDelete