Margaret Sanger: Birth Control Pioneer and Feminist-Fascist

[SwizzleStick]

"Margaret Sanger: Birth Control Pioneer and Feminist-Fascist

Shell-shocked liberals have taken to dubbing conservatives as “Ku Klux Klan folks” and “neo-fascists” toting swastikas to town hall meetings. But ironically, turns out it’s liberals who have engaged in a century-long pas de deux with fascistic ideology.

Take Margaret Sanger – public health nurse, rabid feminist, and avowed socialist. Doing her rounds in New York City’s immigrant ghettos, she became enamored of the biological and political possibilities of birth control. A prolific writer, she churned out numerous books and articles. In Women and the New Race, Sanger ominously expounded: “no Socialist republic can operate successfully and maintain its ideals unless the practice of birth control is encouraged to a marked and efficient degree.”…

Entire article here: mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/31/margaret-sanger-birth-control-pioneer-and-feminist-fascist/

 

[Sair]

It’s interesting that here, as in many other places, we see potentially useful and positive ideas condemned because they occur in conjunction with negative and destructive attitudes.

Coincidence does not mean necessary association. At the time Margaret Sanger was espousing her ideas, many nations in Europe, and elsewhere in the West - America and Australia, the latter still employing the infamous ‘White Australia Policy’ - were very keen on preserving the ‘white’ race (as if there was actually a single ‘white’ race…). Therefore, the fact that Margaret Sanger was caught up in this culture while at the same time advocating contraception does not mean contraception is inextricably linked with notions of eugenics, ‘racial cleansing’ and genocide. It is just coincidence.

I’ve noticed it’s a favourite tactic of the religious right to pretend that there are causal links between such concepts as acceptance of evolution and rejection of morality; acceptance of euthanasia and rejection of the individual right of decision; acceptance of contraception and rejection of family values…the list goes on and on.

There are no causal links here. What is at work is a process of social acceptance. It is now more acceptable, for example, to talk about sexual matters in public - the fact that people talk more about such things does not automatically mean that they are more prevalent, only that it is more acceptable to talk about them. You just can’t infer causal links from coincidence.

The association of contraception with racism and fascism is about as logical as rejecting Catholicism because Hitler was a Catholic.

 

[edwest2]

Hello,

That is an astounding statement, without factual support. I invite you to read this and please note the reference to the book at the end:

boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/08/02/sangers_unapologetic_eugenics/

As an American, I am very aware of how my government wiped out the Native Americans, how others wiped out the native South Americans and how others killed many Australian aborigenes. But it should be pointed out that Mr. Darwin was advocating not allowing the weaker races to breed, and compared them with farm animals in this regard.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Brooklyn]

It’s interesting that here, as in many other places, we see potentially useful and positive ideas condemned because they occur in conjunction with negative and destructive attitudes.

Coincidence does not mean necessary association. At the time Margaret Sanger was espousing her ideas, many nations in Europe, and elsewhere in the West - America and Australia, the latter still employing the infamous ‘White Australia Policy’ - were very keen on preserving the ‘white’ race (as if there was actually a single ‘white’ race…). Therefore, the fact that Margaret Sanger was caught up in this culture while at the same time advocating contraception does not mean contraception is inextricably linked with notions of eugenics, ‘racial cleansing’ and genocide. It is just coincidence.

I’ve noticed it’s a favourite tactic of the religious right to pretend that there are causal links between such concepts as acceptance of evolution and rejection of morality; acceptance of euthanasia and rejection of the individual right of decision; acceptance of contraception and rejection of family values…the list goes on and on.

There are no causal links here. What is at work is a process of social acceptance. It is now more acceptable, for example, to talk about sexual matters in public - the fact that people talk more about such things does not automatically mean that they are more prevalent, only that it is more acceptable to talk about them. You just can’t infer causal links from coincidence.

The association of contraception with racism and fascism is about as logical as rejecting Catholicism because Hitler was a Catholic.

That’s some argument. Since you bring up Hitler, I guess we can just say about Hitler that he was “caught up in the culture” of anti-Semitism. So we really can’t link him with the murder of 6 million Jews.

What about Justice Ginsberg’s statement: “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Ginsberg sounds completely in line with Margaret Sanger and eugenics.

To defend Margaret Sanger and her racist, bigoted views is beyond the pale.

Mary

 

[Sair]

That’s some argument. Since you bring up Hitler, I guess we can just say about Hitler that he was “caught up in the culture” of anti-Semitism. So we really can’t link him with the murder of 6 million Jews.

What about Justice Ginsberg’s statement: “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Ginsberg sounds completely in line with Margaret Sanger and eugenics.

To defend Margaret Sanger and her racist, bigoted views is beyond the pale.

Mary

I think you may have missed the point of my post. At no stage did I attempt to mount a defence of Margaret Sanger’s views about eugenics and racial cleansing - placing her attitudes in the socio-political context of her time is not a defence, merely a perspective.

The reason I did that was in an attempt to demonstrate that useful and helpful ideas or technologies should not be rejected on the basis of the attitudes of those who use, hold, invent or create them. Hence my reference to Hitler’s Catholicism.

It’s simplistic and invalid to say “Birth control is a bad thing because one of its most outspoken advocates was a racist bigot”. That seemed to be the thrust of the article cited by the OP, and that is the position against which I argued.

 

[Brooklyn]

I think you may have missed the point of my post. At no stage did I attempt to mount a defence of Margaret Sanger’s views about eugenics and racial cleansing - placing her attitudes in the socio-political context of her time is not a defence, merely a perspective.

The reason I did that was in an attempt to demonstrate that useful and helpful ideas or technologies should not be rejected on the basis of the attitudes of those who use, hold, invent or create them. Hence my reference to Hitler’s Catholicism.

It’s simplistic and invalid to say “Birth control is a bad thing because one of its most outspoken advocates was a racist bigot”. That seemed to be the thrust of the article cited by the OP, and that is the position against which I argued.

I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not, but artificial birth control is considered by the Catholic Church to be as much of an intrinsic evil as abortion itself. In fact, ABC is at the heart of all the immoral evil we see around us, and Margaret Sanger is its patron saint. That is the position of the Catholic Church. That is why the position of the cited article can never be acceptable.

Margaret Sanger promoted evil as her life work. I don’t see how there is anything good that came from her. She was a hateful, racist bigot who wanted to see portions of our population wiped out. And Ruth Ginsberg seems to completely concur with her position.

What good technologies are there in birth control? You are just making no sense. I really think you need to re-think your position. There is no such thing as disposable people, which is what your post and all the elitist other people who think like you like to promote. All human life is precious because God created it and because our Lord spilled his blood on the cross to bring us all salvation.

Mary

 

[Brooklyn]

I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not, but artificial birth control is considered by the Catholic Church to be as much of an intrinsic evil as abortion itself. In fact, ABC is at the heart of all the immoral evil we see around us, and Margaret Sanger is its patron saint. That is the position of the Catholic Church. That is why the position of the cited article can never be acceptable.

Margaret Sanger promoted evil as her life work. I don’t see how there is anything good that came from her. She was a hateful, racist bigot who wanted to see portions of our population wiped out. And Ruth Ginsberg seems to completely concur with her position.

What good technologies are there in birth control? You are just making no sense. I really think you need to re-think your position. There is no such thing as disposable people, which is what your post and all the elitist other people who think like you like to promote. All human life is precious because God created it and because our Lord spilled his blood on the cross to bring us all salvation.

Mary

Let me correct my post - that is why your position can never be accepted, not the position of the article.

 

[njmama]

I think you may have missed the point of my post. At no stage did I attempt to mount a defence of Margaret Sanger’s views about eugenics and racial cleansing - placing her attitudes in the socio-political context of her time is not a defence, merely a perspective.

Fine, you are not defending Sanger’s racism. But to say that her agenda of birth control-- and the movement that it spawned, no pun intended-- and her eugenic-based beliefs are unrelated is not very accurate. Can’t you consider that perhaps Sanger’s philosophy is still pervasive in an organization like Planned Parenthood? Is it so impossible to think that Margaret Sanger and her predominantly white, privileged cohorts and their desire to see a smaller black population have anything to do with the predominantly white, privileged leadership of Planned Parenthood and their mission to bring more clinics to poor, urban blacks? You can say it is an act of compassion to set up PPs among people in need, but to me and many others it seems more like an attempt to squash a sector of the population they consider bothersome.

And I don’t think anyone here was implying that because Sanger was a hateful bigot that means birth control is not permissible. I’m sure there is no need to tell you the Catholic Church and most other Christians have held artificial birth control and abortion in particular in contempt for thousands of years. What it does indicate is there are some insidious mechanics at work within the abortion industry in the US, starting with Sanger and co. To deny the inherent racism and greed in the American abortion/reproduction industry, apart from the fact that it sponsors murder, is to avoid the facts history presents to us.

 

[Bluegoat]

You know, as much as I think that the mission of Planned Parenthood is on the wrong track, I think to point to it’s members as trying to practice racial eugenics is totally and completely unfair and unfounded. I think most PP workers would honestly abhore any such sentiments. Especially with relation to birth control, many who work there are really trying to help others who are in difficult situations, and many are motivated by seeing those situations and being moved by them.

And is is not a logically acceptable argument to say that because individual X believed fact Y, they are intrinsically related. They might be, but an argument would have to be made on a logical basis. And it could be that while belief X might lead to Y, there are other, unrelated reasons that people believe Y - that is Y does NOT imply X.

Very few people overall support eugenics. Far more support birth control for other reasons. I am not even sure what the point of pushing the Margaret Sanger connection is - those people all know that they do not support eugenics, so they are not likely to be swayed that ABC is necessarily connected to eugenics without a very very strong argument. The Margaret Sanger argument seems to be grasping at straws to me.

Do that many ABC opponents really not have a better argument that they need to use this one?

 

[Christopher68]

artificial birth control is considered by the Catholic Church to be as much of an intrinsic evil as abortion itself. In fact, ABC is at the heart of all the immoral evil we see around us

Birth control and abortion cannot even be considered as similar. I have heard this argument before, and my paradigm cannot comprehend this as being sensical in any way.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that ABC is at the heart of all the immoral evil around us. There is plenty of evil in the world - murder, physical assaults, rape, robbery, vandalism, fraud, etc. But somehow ABC is the heart of evil around us???

 

[njmama]

You know, as much as I think that the mission of Planned Parenthood is on the wrong track, I think to point to it’s members as trying to practice racial eugenics is totally and completely unfair and unfounded. I think most PP workers would honestly abhore any such sentiments. Especially with relation to birth control, many who work there are really trying to help others who are in difficult situations, and many are motivated by seeing those situations and being moved by them.

And there is likely truth in that-- the few Planned Parenthood workers/volunteers I’ve known personally do state they are acting out of compassion. But the story from those I know on the other end of PP’s services feel quite differently. I’ve known too many black women and men who felt victimized by Planned Parenthood. So despite the intentions of workers, those who are supposed to receive their purported benefits are often hurt and feel they were on the receiving end of condescending, racist attitudes.

The claim that Planned Parenthood now (Sanger aside) is perpetuating prejudice against minorities comes from the black community perhaps even more than “ABC opponents” (look at someone like activist Dick Gregory who as far as I know has no religious beliefs behind his disgust for PP). To use some of the arguments stated here, if Sanger’s bigotry can’t infect the entire organization than neither can the good will of a few workers redeem it!