Site Map for Women's Resources
From Tue May 6 07:29:46 1997 Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 22:07:35 -0400 From: "Laurie D. T. Mann" Reply to: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: AB: Margaret Sanger, what's the story? [email protected] wrote: > To make a long story short, Planned Parenthood, and by extension its > founder, Margaret Sanger, was being discussed on another list when another > list member in Washington (he's worked for Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp and > Steve Forbes since I've known him; 'nuff said) posted material from a far > right-wing web site describing MS as a hate-filled bigot and infanticide > proponent. Considering the source, I pooh-poohed it. Now that he's > gleefully passed on the following article from the somewhat (and only > somewhat <g>) more creditable Wall Street Journal, I wonder: how much, if > any, of this is for real? More than feminists would care to admit, but less than what Sanger's detractors would state as "gospel." You have to remember the time in which Sanger lived and wrote. She was growing up at a time when some people worshipped Darwinism and took it to absurd extremes while other people vilified him. Women were still dying childbirth and as the result of have too many children, but somewhat more sanitary conditions meant that women AND children were surviving the rigors of pregnancy, childbirth and infancy. Birth control information was beginning to be developed and shared so that families COULD "control" their childbearing, but governments (all white males, many excessively religious and conservative) were fighting this information tooth and nail as being against "God's plan." So much of what Sanger did - educating women about their bodies, distributing birth control, encouraging the development of the Pill, seems logical, reasonable and right be today's standards of thought. She was considered a rebel for those activities back then, but not today. Unfortunately, in those days, many intelligent people thought eugenics, "cleaning the gene pool," was a good idea. On paper, it has a certain Vulcan logic - it's extreme and unforgiving. And, it turns out, even if you killed/prevented the birth of every person with a certain genetic condition, the genetic condition still rearises due to genetic mutation. So, yes, Sanger did believe in eugenics. And, yes, she did believe in the fallacy of the "superior" races and inferior races. I haven't read enough of her own material to know how far she went with it, and how much of the extremism was propaganda added by the anti-Sanger forces. I have read enough to know that I'm not completely comfortable with some of the stuff she wrote, but I also try to understand the HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH SHE WROTE IT (without being an apologist). One problem many people have is the inability to see that many great people also had great flaws. FDR was, in many ways, our greatest president, but he was a very flawed human being. Marie Curie, one of the greatest scientists of the last two hundred years, nearly broke up another couple's marriage a few years after her husband's death. On the other hand, sometimes propaganda can overwhelm the good things a person did. Did you know King Richard III probably didn't kill his nephews in the Tower of London, and that he wasn't such an awful king (even if he did usurp the throne)? When someone tells you something really outrageous, think about it. What's their line? Most people don't care about historical truths, they only care about making you agree with them. Some of us have got to be honest and admit the good and the evil about our foremothers too. -- ****** Laurie D. T. Mann *****