Direct Engagement

Comments

1. Heather | February 4, 2010 10:46 AM | Reply

   I agree with your assessment of Margaret Sanger’s contributions. Though well-meaning, had she thought through all of the implications of eugenics, maybe women of minorities would not have been strongly suggested or required to be sterilized. Since it appears that the Laura Briggs piece is no longer required reading, I guess I won’t spoil anything by pointing out that Puerto Rican women were targeted to have sterilizations. This was, in part, due to Planned Parenthood setting up private birth control clinics, which were set up due to “demographic pressures identified by U.S. demographers” (Briggs, 33). Planned Parenthood, being founded by Sanger and influenced by her support of eugenics, is somewhat a reflection of Sanger herself, regardless of Sanger’s direct involvement (or lack thereof) in international affairs such as this (Sanger, 138). Despite her altruistic intentions, further demonstrated by the quote, “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother,” she did get the ball rolling, so to speak, helping those with racial biases justify this “racial genocide” (Roberts, 57). The outcome of her support of eugenics seems to have indirectly caused unnecessary sterilization for many minority women.

2. Kathryn | February 5, 2010 12:31 AM | Reply

   I am going to parrot both of your points because I agree with them. Margaret Sanger was well-intentioned but failed to acknowledge that promoting birth control so strongly for minorities marginalizes those groups and thinly veils her own eugenics agenda. Establishing clinics and access to birth control in regions densely populated with minorities may have been the result of pressures from demographers, but Sanger was so focused on liberating women through control of their bodies that she did not realize what appeared to motivate her intentions. The presence of disproportionately accessible birth control becomes inextricably linked to a campaign addressing eugenics for Sanger. While her lifelong pursuit of women's liberation was in good faith, her support for eugenics can be reasonably linked to the marginalization and sterilization of minorities.

3. Thunder_Fox | February 5, 2010 9:01 AM | Reply

   I also agree that it is sad that such hard and good work for reproductive rights was tainted by acts against women's and civil rights and socioeconomic equality as a whole. This is certainly not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a group or movement that claims to represent the whole damages a segment of its constituents.

   On the positive side, there is something to be learned from this; as philosopher George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Instead of excusing some people and harshly judging others, it might be more productive to dissect their actions and motivations, so that we may avoid committing the same mistakes. Something we can learn from Margaret Sanger’s mistakes is that the first step in helping a particular group of people is to stop helping them, ask questions, and start listening. As intelligent and well-meaning as an individual may be, if he doesn’t possess the identity of those he wishes to assist, how can he claim know where to begin, much less to hold the key to group’s future success? Instead of paternalistically believing she knew better how to help those of completely different ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, Margaret would almost certainly have better assisted these groups, and the reproductive rights movement as a whole, by asking these people, “How can I help you escape poverty?” (If this were the question she was trying to answer.)
   

4. malon256 | February 5, 2010 10:52 AM | Reply

   I definitely agree with everyone on the fact that Margaret Sanger’s magnificent help in the women’s rights movement was dismissed by some due to the fact that the promotion of the birth control pill was linked with eugenics. Margaret Sanger was so focused on trying to help women, of every class and race that I do not think she realized the extent to which women in poverty and of color were being marginalized. I agree with the latest comment that this is something that a great lesson can be learned from. Considering Margaret Sanger’s goal was to help all women, she should have made sure that all women were being treated the same in regards to the birth control promotion and distribution. The fact that this discovery was made from much determination to give women the same rights to contraceptives as men, it was taking one step forward and two steps back by discriminating against people in poverty and of color. If the promotion of the birth control pill was not linked to eugenics there could have been even wider acceptance and appreciation of the amazing discovery.