to give expression to their wishes on measures likely to affect their interests.
6 A eugenicist point of view on the marriage question
Karl Pearson (1857–1936), born into a Quaker family, is mostly known as the mathematician who, in 1911, founded the first Department of Applied Statistics in the world. A man of brilliant intellect and eclectic tastes, Pearson embraced freethought and socialism, consorted with the Fabians, the anarchists and the Theosophists, and became a passionate proponent of Eugenics, a science invented by the man who became
policies attempts to impose social discipline and to normalise the behaviour of the working class. Others have also noted the increasing espousal of negative eugenics in the late 1920s, drawing allegations of continuity with the Nazi regime. 1 Michelle Mouton, however, sees a distinct difference between the Weimar Republic, which had no agreed official family policy, and the Third Reich, which had, even if it was not uniformly implemented throughout Germany. 2 This chapter seeks to explore woman’s role within the family, primarily as wife and mother, the impact of the
article read as an exhortation to women ‘to escape … bondage’, in keeping with Cookson’s campaign for their civic rights (he signed the Declaration of Men in support of Women’s Suffrage in The Times , 23 March 1909). His views earned him a reputation as a Malthusian, but he neither fully embraced the ideas of Malthus nor did he see eye to eye with the eugenicist Francis Galton, although, on his offer, in 1909 he accepted the chair of the Eugenics Education Society. His work undoubtedly placed him amongst the reformers of ‘the Social Evil’, but his political ambition to
problems seemed ubiquitous after the war, although the term itself was seldom deployed in Britain before the war. Certainly in the nineteenth century writers discussed the ‘social question’ and indeed, in a general sense, ‘ the social problem’ (in the singular), or the general state of society in the wake of industrialisation and the corresponding social upheavals that resulted therefrom. In the 1930s, responding to the publication of the report of the Mental Deficiency Committee (the Wood Report of 1929), the Eugenics Society considered the ‘social problem group’ and
becoming an instrument for greater sexual freedom, ‘the preventive check’ 157 was first regarded as an instrument of social control against the reckless poor – providing yet another example of the hybrid character, both progressive and conservative, of the ideologies that ended up fostering women’s rights. There was never any pure ideology in favour of birth control: it was buttressed with a social project, entangled with Malthusian economics, Freethought philosophy, or eugenics considerations. 158 However, for the first time, the radical critique of existing sex
and pupils, to found St George’s, where he served as headmaster from 1907 to his retirement in 1936. The school, popular with the middle-class intelligentsia, rapidly outgrew its original buildings, and never stopped expanding. From 1917 it implemented Montessori pedagogy. Grant appealed to the editor of The Times to raise funds in order to acquire the freehold of the St George’s estate. His dedication to the enterprise attracted a good deal of interest (as well as polemic), particularly in eugenics quarters. English Education and Dr Montessori (1913) had a
, p. 17; Daniel, The War from Within , p. 134. The BdF devoted its 1916 war-time conference to population policy: A. T. Allen, ‘Feminism and Eugenics in Germany and Britain, 1900–1940: A Comparative Perspective’, German Studies Review , 23:3 (2000), 488.
142 A. T. Allen, ‘Feminism, Venereal Diseases, and the State in Germany’, Journal of the History of Sexuality , 4:1 (1993), 45–6; Usborne, ThePolitics of the Body , pp. 21–3; J. Woycke, Birth Control in Germany 1871–1933 (London: Routledge, 1988), pp. 144–5. The law also envisaged the compulsory
29 See Re DD (No 4) (Sterilisation)  EWCOP 4,  per Cobb J: ‘This case is not about eugenics. This outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event for DD’. And see .
30 To do so may breach Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR: see VC v Slovakia (2014) 59 EHRR 29 on forced sterilisation of a Roma woman.
31 The Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies largely to persons of age 16 and over who lack capacity (see s 2(5)). For those aged under 16 who lack competence
, Jeanette was sexually mature. The Law Lords held that the legality of the proposal to sterilise Jeanette must depend only on whether sterilisation would ‘promote the welfare and serve the best interests of the ward’. 122 Consideration of eugenics and whether sterilising Jeanette would ease the burden on those caring for her were irrelevant. 123 Their Lordships concluded that as Jeanette: (1) would never be capable of making any choice for herself on whether to have a child; (2) would never even appreciate what was happening to her; and (3) would suffer damage to her
respond to emotional prescription. 50 Where prescription is entirely missing, if one could hypothesise a situation entirely devoid of culture, it is difficult to imagine the humans there being free of emotional suffering. One could make the argument, then, that emotional prescription in stricter emotional regimes might actually lead to less emotional suffering if the prescriptions are largely met with emotive success. Such was the regime imagined by Francis Galton, pioneer of eugenics, who expected the population to succumb to a grand lie that would see them