Eugenics and feminism in early twentieth-century Australia: the work of Dr Mary Booth

From the time of the suffrage campaigns, many feminist claims to equality drew on the essentialist beliefs enshrined in ‘separate spheres’ ideology, including a belief in women’s innate capacity for nurturance. In the early twentieth century, this focus on nurturance was typically described as maternalist feminism, but maternalists diverged into differing areas. Some focused their attention on white women’s capacity to bear and raise children as a qualification for equal citizenship, while others drew attention to the abuse and neglect of Indigenous mothers. Permeating much thought and activity was the practice of eugenics, with feminist concerns about the health of the ‘race’ implying both its broad meaning (the human race) and a narrow one (the white race). Doctor Mary Booth, an Australian feminist physician, whose feminism was influenced by maternalist principles, practised as a eugenicist between 1900 and 1913 and published several works during that time. By the time of the upsurge of feminist eugenic activity in the interwar period, she was no longer practising medicine. In her postmedical career, she did not abandon her eugenic views but channelled them into support of British boy immigration and the founding of a domestic science college in 1936. Comparing Mary Booth with some of her contemporaries, I argue that the diversity of maternalist feminism, particularly when paired with eugenics, could complicate feminist goals, making the relationship between eugenics and feminism at times uncomfortable for their early twentieth-century advocates.