But to return to plans of action for fighting this scourge. The fight
has to be made, and to be begun at once. It is stated that there were,
at the beginning of the year, in the neighborhood of 20,000 infected men
receiving treatment in our Army and Navy Hospitals. According to the
estimate of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases published in 1916
there were, at that time, something like 3,000,000 syphilitic persons in
the Kingdom, 450,000 in London alone. Since 1916 the number must have
greatly increased. Many diseases are more immediately fatal to mankind
than are these diseases, but none are so disastrous in their effects. To
take but two examples of their destructive incidence; it is known that
to them more than half of both the blindness and the lunacy in this
country is directly due. But I need not trouble you with facts and
figures that to-day are known to almost everyone.
What is needed now is a world-wide, organized plan of defense, modified
possibly to meet the special requirements of different countries, but,
as far as is possible, the same for the whole world. A first step has
been taken, at the meeting of the Red Cross Societies of the world,
which was held at Cannes, in April, 1919. No man can tell how
far-reaching its work will prove: an International Health Bureau was
instituted and arrangements made for a further great conference to be
held at Geneva after the signing of peace.
I would like to wait and write of the Cannes Conference, which to me
was an event more serious even than the other world conference, where
some were thoughtlessly and selfishly juggling with human affairs. Here
was no pretending, no hiding of motives, just a facing of the real
situation. The great events of life are almost always quiet. I picture
the great ball-room,[129:1] where usually jazzes and one-steps were
indulged in by the officers of the Allied Armies and bright girl
W.A.A.C.S. and W.R.E.N.S., occupied now with grave men; a group of some
of the greatest scientists ever assembled together. United they seek for
the first time how best an end may be made to this tragic scourge of our
civilization;[129:2] their fervent purpose should light a flame to blaze
in action in every civilized country.
It would be impossible to over-emphasize the importance of the findings
of this Conference. We women are glad to know that the Committee
reported unanimously against State regulation of vice and State
toleration of prostitution. At the same time, the repression of all
street-soliciting was advocated, as well as control of restaurants,
hotels or other places with reference to their use for promoting
prostitution. The Committee further favored the detention and, where
necessary, the isolation of all persons known to be, or suspected of
being infected, and advocated the adoption of the report system in
regard to early preventive treatment. The importance of early marriage
was urged. Other measures recommended were the custodial care of the
feeble-minded, and State control of the use of alcohol.
So many people, and especially, I think, women are led astray by sex
sentiment as soon as they approach these problems. I do not believe that
this can be avoided, but we may guard against it. Thus, those who
hesitate, and there are many who do hesitate, in adopting the proposals
of the Cannes Committee, which are aimed, either directly or indirectly,
against prostitutes, should take care to consider all the facts. Of late
there has been exhibited in this country a rather bewildering
sentimentality about this matter. The experience of the American Army
authorities should teach us a much-needed lesson. The American program
to maintain the sexual health of the men went much further than any
English proposal, straight and without sentiment to the main cause of
the disease, in a way that should shame our vacillating methods.
"The repression of prostitution was declared to be a public health
measure, and all public health departments were required to coöperate
actively with the proper law authorities in minimizing its practice."
When the American armies entered France, the same end, of keeping the
men from "coming in contact with the prostitutes, either public or
clandestine," was always kept in view. The difficulties were immense. At
that time (from August to the early part of November, 1917) the troops
were stationed in certain French towns, where the houses of prostitution
were running wide open and were frequented by large numbers of men. On
November 15th all these houses were placed out of bounds. The table on
the following page shows what happened.
Month No. of No. of Disease Rate
Troops. Prophylaxis. Cases. p. 1000.
Houses open.
August 4,571 1,669 72 16
September 9,471 3,392 124 13
October 3,966 2,074 67 16
Houses out of bounds.
November 7,017 885 81 10
December 4,281 539 44 10
January 3,777 523 8 2
Take also these figures: in one body of 7,401 troops belonging to
various branches of the service, with an average of seven weeks in
France, only 56 prophylactic treatments were given, and only one case
of venereal disease developed; again, during two months in France, one
infantry regiment of 3,267 men had a record of only eleven prophylactic
treatments, and no case of disease. But perhaps the most effective
example of the efforts made by the American authorities to repress
prostitution in France occurred at Blois. American troops arrived at the
town in January, 1918. The brothels were at once placed out of bounds,
but, shortly afterward, and, owing to protestations on the part of the
French authorities,[132:1] the order was relaxed, in so far as one of
the brothels was taken over for the use of the American soldiers. Not
for long was this tolerated. On March 21, this brothel also was put out
of bounds. Strict repressive measures against prostitution and
street-walking were put in force; and repeated arrests--by the military
police--both of prostitutes and suspected prostitutes, succeeded in
almost ridding the town of this menace.
The result was very interesting. I will quote directly from the article
from which these facts are taken:
_Although politicians and the owners of cafés and brothels
continued to protest, the decent elements of the community
gradually changed from an attitude of skepticism, even of
hostility and resentment, to one of appreciation, commendation
and coöperation. An official report from the Surgeon-General's
office on conditions in the town declared:_
"_It is evident that placing the houses at Blois out of bounds
has had a wonderful effect, not only in lowering the venereal
rate, but in improving the morality of the soldiers and also
of the civil population._"
Of course, these few figures and scattered facts cannot tell the whole
story; they do, however, indicate with sufficient clearness what may be
done by firm and fearless action.
V
Let me try to make the position clearer by means of another and quite
different illustration. The results of restrictions on the drink trade
in England during the war showed that legislative interference with
strict rules can do much more than many of us believed.[134:1] Wipe off
all that is doubtful in the results, all evasions of the law, all that
was due to the absence of a large number of healthy men, yet the State
interference--prohibition of treating, great shortening of hours,
provision of weakened beer--these undoubtedly have acted so as to reduce
drunkenness.
Surely this must serve as a great proof that the removal of temptation
is the one effective remedy to help men and women and to prevent sin. A
man who got into trouble with a woman not very long ago, gave as a
defense in police court: "You can say 'No' to one woman, but when they
are round you all the time you can't."
The three objections specially urged by women against laws directed
against prostitution and prohibiting solicitation are:--
(1) That such laws cannot prevent all solicitation. This may be granted,
but it does not prove that they may not greatly lessen the evil of
solicitation. It may be granted, in the same way, that no State
prohibition can prevent all secret drinking. But this is no reason for
or against prohibition; the question is what it does do, not what it
does not do.
(2) That such laws act unequally for the two sexes,--that is, that a man
is never, or almost never, made specially liable for soliciting and
worrying women. This objection is really quite absurd, and it is only on
account of the frequency with which it is urged by women that I refer to
it again. For the life of me, I cannot see how any woman reconciles it
with her conscience to bring forward such a silly evasion. A woman can
always give a man in charge who annoys and insults her; moreover, in the
vast majority of cases she could without effort protect herself from any
such annoyance. Laughter is a weapon that will dishearten the most
persistent man-follower. Besides, as every one of us knows, solicitation
is the woman's act, and not the man's in ninety-nine out of a hundred of
these cases. The man may be ready, possibly he may seek, but he seeks
only where he knows the one sought will invite. This objection cannot
then, in honesty, stand.
(3) That such laws encourage blackmailing by the police; also that the
police may arrest poor, hard-working and defenseless girls, out for a
legitimate lark and charge them by error or vindictively. The fear of
blackmailing by the police is, I think, the one valid objection.
Possibly it can be met by a much wider use of women police; the second
objection of the poor defenseless girl, wrongly charged, leaves me quite
unmoved. Again the remedy is in the girl's own hands. But, as a matter
of fact, the police are so afraid of making a mistake that, almost in
every case where there is a doubt, they do not charge.
Those--again I must add especially women--opposed to State interference
in these matters must ask themselves on what grounds their opposition
is based: should we not consider the health of society in the present
and the future well-being of the race as more important than our
personal distaste and intellectual dislike of interference? Even
_liberty_ must not take up a disproportionate amount of space in our
view. My own belief in the efficacy of making right doing as simple as
is possible by lessening temptation, is based on what life has taught
me, that the fundamental character of people is not greatly alterable,
but that the alteration of their circumstances will certainly influence
the effect and working of their capacities and instincts. The buttercup
which is tall with a flower at the end of a high firm stalk and leaves
with slender spike fingers, if it grows in an open meadow, becomes a
stunted flower on a short stem, and its leaves form squat webs, in order
to force its growth on a close-cropped lawn. The experience of the
American Army shows us that to cut off opportunity and suggestion of
temptation, the incentives to libidinous imagination, is to alter
character more than everyone recognizes. When I think of this
achievement, gained in so short a time and with so simple means, I
confess I lose patience with the opposition raised by the women of this
country against every attempt at legislative interference with
prostitution. Nothing can be done thoroughly because of this hindering
folly. There really is no limit to women's sentimental egoism and their
blindness in turning from facts.
We pray in our churches "lead us not into temptation," but we leave our
streets crowded with temptations. Surely this is stupid negligence and
worse. Remove the temptations, and as a nation we shall be delivered
from evil.