Women Should Be Limited to the Domestic Sphere

At least, that was the opinion of several Supreme Court Justices when Myra Bradwell sought the equal protection of the 14th Amendment and the right to become a lawyer in Illinois in 1872. (Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872)).

This is one of my favorite Supreme Court opinions — not only because I was raised in Utah where I was taught as a young girl that a woman’s divine and only calling was to be a mother and stay in the home but also because I eventually left Utah and practiced law in Illinois.  I always love it when men claim to know God’s will as a justification for discriminating against women.

Did the United States Supreme Court really hear God?  Justice Bradley wrote in his concurring opinion denying Ms. Bradwell the right to be an attorney:

“The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”

Basically, the United States Supreme Court believed that anatomy was destiny for women and used God’s law as legal support.  Besides the court had to deny women the right to pursue all occupations because married women were legally incompetent to make contracts, timid and unfit, and didn’t have the special skill and confidence to be a lawyer.

Justice Bradley explained the rationale for denying women the right to engage in any and every profession, occupation or employment:

“[T]he civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. One of these is, that a married woman is incapable, without her husband’s consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counsellor.

. . .

The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman’s advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.” (emphasis added).”

I’m curious.  Does anyone still think it is repugnant for a woman to have a separate and distinct career from her husband?  Does anyone still think that women should be relegated to the domestic sphere?

Do any girls unconsciously think this?  Really, why does Utah have the lowest college graduation rate for women in the country?

Clearly the divine calling/separate spheres rationale for discrimination against women didn’t originate in Utah but it seems like it’s still alive and well there.

Did the Supreme Court originally get it right?