Men, whether in the service or not, if found carrying an infection, underwent treatments while going on with their lives. Considering the era, do you find this disparity “normal”? Why?
Depressingly, yes. Men’s labor and status have always been held to be more important than “women’s work.”
I agree given the times this was would have been normal, especially in the South. Men held the status and women, especially unmarried women were subject to a different code.
1 Like
Sadly, this seems par for the course for that time. It was acceptable that men had sexual desires and the diseases were a consequence of that behavior. If a woman had sexual desires or even wanted to live a different way ( working to support themselves without a husband ) they were considered unnatural. A sad product of the time.
1 Like
Sadly, I agree that this disparity would have been considered “normal” in this era.
Yes, I did find it to be both accurate and “normal.” In fact, there was an attitude of, well, this is to be expected. Ugh.
1 Like
It was normal for the era – because of the power dynamic between men and women at the time and the misogynistic attitudes of lawmakers who saw power flowing in one direction. After all, “boys will be boys,” so the ladies had to stay clean.
I agree with the reasons given here, and venture to add that one contemporary report on the problem of soldiers with STIs claimed that one-third of the soldiers were infected, thus seriously endangering the ability of the military to be a full-fledged fighting force. Yes, men were more highly valued (and I believe this continues today) but in this instance, it might not be fully advantageous to be valued as cannon fodder.
Unless they had no idea of STDs being spread to wives via husbands, it can’t be normal. To lock up anyone who just looks or lives in what could be a “suspicious” manner, is outrageous. I was shocked to see that this was going on even after World War II.
1 Like
Yes, the “boys will be boys” attitude. And it is actually still here today. Consider the girl who was raped at Stanford. Press charges? People were actually saying that the accusation would ruin the university athletic career of the male.
1 Like
I think this disparity may very well have been “normal” at that time. However, that does not make it acceptable. Misogyny has been “normal” throughout history (and is still “normal” in certain settings today). Stella’s father was the prime example of this. Everyone knew Stella had been raped, and they just sterilized Stella since they knew her father would likely do it again. They knew this wasn’t right.
1 Like
This is So Horrific! The men are “planting” these infections all through the population and are either asymptomatic or are untreated/under treated but the women they are infecting are shamed and incarcerated, punished and sterilized. Unfathomable! But of course given the time and place, culture and religion..not surprising. This is a nightmare!
1 Like
and What were they “doing” about THAT? This is just giving me shivers!
No, it’s not normal, but it is the way things were. I’m 75 and I remember my public school having a boys playground and a girls playground, with a fence between. Tha boys playground had all the playground equipment because the girls HAD to wear dresses and shouldn’t show their underwear. We were not allowed shorts under our dresses. The girls playground had grass and a cement slab. We could play red rover, jump rope, and bounce a ball. Is it normal to decide how someone dresses and then decide what was allowed because of how they dressed? That’s not normal, that’s setting gender roles.