The Lilly Library has 3 pamphlets on the Contagious Disease Acts. These acts were passed by the British government in 1864, 1867, and 1869 due to concern about prostitution and the spread of STDs. All three pamphlets held by the Lilly Library were written in response to the writings of Miss Garret, who appears to have fervently supported the Acts.
"A Few Words in Answer to..." was written in response to both Miss Garret and a Mr. Berkley Hill, who also supported the act. The author requests a public publishing of the Acts so that the general public may be informed of their content. The author acknowledges that Miss Garret is obviously concerned for the well being of women, but suggests that she has missed a few key points - she feels that Miss Garret's moral defense of the Acts falls short, as it does not address the problems of women's education, poverty, and unskilled labor. The author also questions whether the Act recognizes a difference between those who engage in prostitution for pleasure versus those who engage in it to survive. This author also expresses the concern that the Acts punish only the women who are a part of prositution, not the men: for if only one sex were engaged, the problem would not exist. This author also promotes spiritual and legal exquality between men and women to promote healthy and faithful marriges and solve some of the problems of prostitution.
A second pamphlet, "Justiana's Letters" is another response to Miss Garret's writing. This writer looks to public disscussion as a way to "protect" the public from the Contagious Disease Acts. She points out that Miss Garret attempted to close the disscussion concerning these Acts, but points out that disscussion needs to continue. She points out that many of Miss Garret's stastistics are flawed - and also that 3/5 if the major medical journals condemn the Contagious Disease Acts. The author includes charts showing the decrease in soldiers with STDs admitted to hospitals.
The third pamphlet, "A Reply" published in the Pall Mall Gazette, is a series of letters written by Mrs. W. T. Malleson, also in response to Miss Garret. Mrs. Malleson brings up several questions and topics not addressed by the other pamphlets. She looks to the Bible to oppose the Acts and asks that the Bible be the refernece for daily life. She also takes issue with Miss Garrets arguement that the Acts are "necessary," but instead asks "Is this legeslation right?" She takes issue with the fact that Miss Garret says that women prostitutes are a "class" and men are seen as the victims. Perhaps the most important question that Mrs. Malleson proposes is "What is the ultimate object of all efforts for the ameliroation of human ills?"
The arguments of the first two pamphlets both involve statistics and specific arguements in conflict with or in contrast to the arguements of Miss Garret. The converstations in these two pamphlets appear converge with hers in style and rhetoric. Mrs. Malleson's writing, in contrast, also argues against Miss Garret, but does so by brining up new point and new aspects not covered in the other's writings.
Questions:
Was the moral side of prostituion or the physical/disease effects the greater concern of the Acts?
Where can we read Miss Garret's original writings, as well as the Acts themselves?
What other legislation was passed by the British government at this same time? Is there any relation? Were other countries also passing similar acts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
[This comment is from Nicole]
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that men were viewed as victims in prostitution. How did Miss Garret support that?
Aside from the moral issues with prostitution, it seems that viewing men as victims allows them to be free of their responsibility in the matter, and this might have been a way to subvert women's independence. It seems to say, here is what happens when some women are left to self-dependence: they engage in immoral pursuits. It seems to suggest that if men actually did have an active role in the situation, then the problem of prostitution would not persist. Of course, this is flawed logic.
It might be interesting to compare the reaction to prostitution to the reaction to women in other areas of society. What was the reaction to women who pursued higher education or professional careers? Aside from differences in moral grounds, was there a similarity between the reactions to women in these areas and women in prostitution?
-Nicole
Nicole and Rebekah, I agree it may seem farfetched and one-sided given our contemporary lens, but I wonder what reasoning Mr. Hill gives for justifying that men were the victims of prostitution? Could it be on the basis that the moral stance is against disease itself rather than the act of prostitution? Or was it the other way around? I don't actually know the answer to that; I have the same questions as Rebekah, in terms of what was the intended target of the Acts. But I wonder how we could find out, utilizing the other texts in the collection?
ReplyDelete-Dr. Graban
I personally think the acts were a way to punish prostitutes, or other women suspected of being promiscuous (perhaps due to their infection with some venereal disease) for their supposed lack of morals.
ReplyDeleteI think the response from "Justina" points out that it more of a concern of morals than actual disease because if it was only about the disease then parliament should be passing legislation to forcibly contain and treat those with consumption or bronchitis.
I also think the idea that men are morally responsible for prostitution and venereal disease spread is also interesting and I think their lack of accountability may say something about the peril the contagious disease acts placed women in. If men, husbands in particular, are frequenting prostitutes and contract any sort of venereal disease then pass it on to their wife I think it would be likely that she would be accused of being immoral and "promiscuous" rather than her husband being held responsible. In this way the actions of men actually magnify the risks of women who are not prostitutes but simply wives.
Any thoughts on that? Particularly the part about men posing risks for other women?
-Alex
These particular readings are totally interesting! I totally agree with the three of you in different ways. How would the men involved in these situations even be named as victims when it is a matter of choice. Although they are acquiring these diseses from female prostitutes they are choosing to do so!
ReplyDeleteYes Alex, I agree if a husband is likely to bring a disease home to his wife, because of the Acts and how women were percieved, she would likely be blaimed for it. I agree as wel that those Acts were to punish women in general without even thinking about the logic of why were men doing these immoral things with prositutes?
Ra'Quell and Alex, aren't we in danger of making assumptions about the possible outcome and use of the "Contagious Diseases Acts" unless we see what we can find out (more concretely) about their rhetorical aim? I guess I'm still wondering how we might get a more concrete sense of how the writers ("Justina," Mrs. Malleson, anonymous) position both women and men as moral subjects and/or moral arbitrators. In other words, which of the three pieces carries the strongest language, and what does that language convey? Or, more possibly if we had to map out "sides" to an argument, who would be on what side, and would there be an alternative position? Or, how does each one construct audience?
ReplyDelete-Dr. Graban
I began working on this but then changed my mind so I still find it really fascinating. I think that the bigger problem within the Acts is not the actual disease but the moral controversy. It seems almost if the disease takes the back burner to the discussion of prostitution and how immoral it is.
ReplyDelete