What do you think?
Rate this book
Woman and The New Race
THE modern Woman Movement, like the modern Labour Movement, may be said to have begun in the Eighteenth century. The Labour movement arose out of the Industrial Revolution with its resultant tendency to over-population, to unrestricted competition, to social misery and disorder. The Woman movement appeared as an at first neglected by-product of the French Revolution with its impulses of general human expansion, of freedom and of equality. Since then, as we know, these two movements have each had a great and vigorous career which is still far from completed. On the whole they have moved independently along separate lines, and have at times seemed indeed almost hostile to each other. That has ceased to be the case. Of recent years it has been seen not only that these two movements are not hostile, but that they may work together harmoniously for similar ends. One final step remained to be taken—it had to be realised not only that the Labour movement could give the secret of success to the woman movement by its method and organization, but that on the other hand, woman held the secret without which labour is impotent to reach its ends. Woman, by virtue of motherhood is the regulator of the birthrate, the sacred disposer of human production. It is in the deliberate restraint and measurement of human production that the fundamental problems of the family, the nation, the whole brotherhood of mankind find their solution. The health and longevity of the individual, the economic welfare of the workers, the general level of culture of the community, the possibility of abolishing from the world the desolating scourge of war—all these like great human needs, depend, primarily and fundamentally, on the wise limitation of the human output. It does not certainly make them inevitable, but it renders them possible of accomplishment; without it they have been clearly and repeatedly proved to be impossible.
82 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1920
About the author
Margaret Sanger
82 books54 followersMargaret Higgins Sanger Slee was an American birth control activist and the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood). Although she initially met with opposition, Sanger gradually won some support for getting women access to contraception. In her drive to promote contraception and negative eugenics, Sanger remains a controversial figure.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
November 24, 2021
Margaret shows her true colors in this chilling essay, in which she attempts to transfer her evil hedonism onto others in a persuasive, and at times compelling, argument.
Margaret Sanger: unapologetic racist and eugenicist. Proponent of ridding the world of unwanted children in any way, no matter the cost, as long as they prevent a woman from achieving her "feminine spirit" which demands freedom above all else.
Quotes:
"What shall be done? We can refuse to bring weak, the helpless and the unwanted children into the world."
"The woman who goes to the abortionist's table is not a criminal but a martyr."
"No matter how much they desire children, no man and woman have a right to bring into the world those who are to suffer from mental or physical affliction."
"Each and every unwanted child is likely to be in some way a social liability. It is only the wanted child who is likely to be a social asset."
"The most serious evil of our time is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children."
"[Free womanhood] refuses to bring forth weaklings; refuses to bring forth slaves; refuses to bear children who must live under [unfit] conditions....Instictively it avoids all those things which multiply racial handicaps. Under such circumstances we can hope that the 'melting pot' will refine. We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination."
Margaret Sanger: unapologetic racist and eugenicist. Proponent of ridding the world of unwanted children in any way, no matter the cost, as long as they prevent a woman from achieving her "feminine spirit" which demands freedom above all else.
Quotes:
"What shall be done? We can refuse to bring weak, the helpless and the unwanted children into the world."
"The woman who goes to the abortionist's table is not a criminal but a martyr."
"No matter how much they desire children, no man and woman have a right to bring into the world those who are to suffer from mental or physical affliction."
"Each and every unwanted child is likely to be in some way a social liability. It is only the wanted child who is likely to be a social asset."
"The most serious evil of our time is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children."
"[Free womanhood] refuses to bring forth weaklings; refuses to bring forth slaves; refuses to bear children who must live under [unfit] conditions....Instictively it avoids all those things which multiply racial handicaps. Under such circumstances we can hope that the 'melting pot' will refine. We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination."
August 17, 2012
Chilling obdurateness wrapped up in an eerie smile- this book shows the true face of the founder of Planned Parenthood, a racist and eugenicist, who hides behind the guise of helping women in distress. This book gave me the willies.
Read
February 20, 2012Originally published in 1920 (that being the edition I read), Sanger's radical exhortation in favor of contraception is a passionate polemic. She presents birth control as a solution to all the world's problems and she predicts its ultimate, inexorable triumph. It struck me to see, even this early in her career, her arguments that the "feeble minded" and immigrant poor in particular have too many children, preventing the development of "a greater race." (This is presumably the human race; or maybe a new "race" of Americans; but the eugenic overtone is unmistakable.) Such a rationale ends up interlaced with her feminism, pacifism, pragmatism, and so on. Voluntary motherhood is for Sanger the key to women's emancipation, to the point that she dismisses women's suffrage and labor movements as mere "palliatives." She musters all kinds of experts, statistics, and examples to make her case; yet claims straight-faced that greater scarcity of human beings will lead to greater respect for human life, thus making wars untenable. Quite the document of its time.
September 29, 2015
Definitely a feminist, a socialist, a supporter of passive eugenics, and a Malthusian. It is incredible to think that people believe Sanger is a proponent of racially based eugenics, an advocator of abortion and infanticide, and a Nazi sympathizer. There is a lot of disinformation and purposeful lies being put out about Sanger. It is best to read her work for yourself. However as with all historical literature, you must keep in mind the author's position in history.
July 5, 2022
Well, this definitely didn't age well, that's for sure.
It was somewhat interesting. Margaret Sanger (MS) clearly tried to be as thorough as possible bringing as many statistics as she could to present her point properly.
I definitely believe her position is mostly out of compassion rather than racism or eugenics and whatnot. (But she was racist and she was pro-eugenics.) However, given that her statistics don't apply now (we understand a lot better of nutrition and overall health), a good chunk of her arguments go out the window.
Given how we understand ethics/morality nowadays, I can see why many people find this unappealing. (Goodness knows if they can argue objective moral values, though, in order to state that in a feasible way.)
Though I think they're mostly right, that position does strike me as too anachronistic for my taste.
Shall we throw Aristotle or Socrates/Plato (or basically ANY author) who sided with slavery (or things that now are considered unethical) to the lions... or shall we keep (as we have) the good (which is level GOD) on their work and dismiss the useless and clearly wrong??
Of course, MS does not have such level of genius as Chad Aristotle or Chad Socrates/Plato. (Who does but a VERY few authors? Postulating this comparison will be VERY blasphemous for some.) But that's not the point. Arguing against MS because of her nulle ethics is arguing in an anachronistic fashion.
Agreeing on the former point by no means require any of us to believe that what she wrote was any good (either in content, presentation, argumentation or anything else), of course.
Therefore, are there things to agree with her or is everything she wrote here garbage? Well, as someone who's very pro-choice, I have to say that at least the overall message is good: Women should have autonomy over their own bodies... even in cases of conflict in rights. Stripping women from agency over their bodies is wrong and abortion does allow better family planning.
Is it better not to get pregnant in the first place? Well, DUH! But there are many events in a person's life (even during pregnancy) that make me her make that decision.
Women should have a saying over their bodies if they don't want to become incubators.
So, Dobbs overturned Roe, wrong decision in my opinion. *shrugs*
Anyways, the presentation of her ideas was mostly good, the content was good as well... But as I've postulated, some of her arguments hardly pass.
As for the narrator, Becky Cook, her voice suits well for this type of readings. Good intonation, very well paced. Definitely a reader I'd follow.
I would recommend this book to people who are into the history of abortion and to religious zealots who love to play the false dichotomy game of "if you don't follow MY religious morality, you're evil and are with/of the devil".
This book will prove to be historically informative for the first group (though currently almost completely outdated) and will fuel the religious nonsense of the second which is obviously their kick (and, let's be honest, fundamentalists and extremists groups loOoOove this type of books in order to waive their "better than thou" flag and throwing everyone who disagrees with them in the same "evil" pot).
It was somewhat interesting. Margaret Sanger (MS) clearly tried to be as thorough as possible bringing as many statistics as she could to present her point properly.
I definitely believe her position is mostly out of compassion rather than racism or eugenics and whatnot. (But she was racist and she was pro-eugenics.) However, given that her statistics don't apply now (we understand a lot better of nutrition and overall health), a good chunk of her arguments go out the window.
Given how we understand ethics/morality nowadays, I can see why many people find this unappealing. (Goodness knows if they can argue objective moral values, though, in order to state that in a feasible way.)
Though I think they're mostly right, that position does strike me as too anachronistic for my taste.
Shall we throw Aristotle or Socrates/Plato (or basically ANY author) who sided with slavery (or things that now are considered unethical) to the lions... or shall we keep (as we have) the good (which is level GOD) on their work and dismiss the useless and clearly wrong??
Of course, MS does not have such level of genius as Chad Aristotle or Chad Socrates/Plato. (Who does but a VERY few authors? Postulating this comparison will be VERY blasphemous for some.) But that's not the point. Arguing against MS because of her nulle ethics is arguing in an anachronistic fashion.
Agreeing on the former point by no means require any of us to believe that what she wrote was any good (either in content, presentation, argumentation or anything else), of course.
Therefore, are there things to agree with her or is everything she wrote here garbage? Well, as someone who's very pro-choice, I have to say that at least the overall message is good: Women should have autonomy over their own bodies... even in cases of conflict in rights. Stripping women from agency over their bodies is wrong and abortion does allow better family planning.
Is it better not to get pregnant in the first place? Well, DUH! But there are many events in a person's life (even during pregnancy) that make me her make that decision.
Women should have a saying over their bodies if they don't want to become incubators.
So, Dobbs overturned Roe, wrong decision in my opinion. *shrugs*
Anyways, the presentation of her ideas was mostly good, the content was good as well... But as I've postulated, some of her arguments hardly pass.
As for the narrator, Becky Cook, her voice suits well for this type of readings. Good intonation, very well paced. Definitely a reader I'd follow.
I would recommend this book to people who are into the history of abortion and to religious zealots who love to play the false dichotomy game of "if you don't follow MY religious morality, you're evil and are with/of the devil".
This book will prove to be historically informative for the first group (though currently almost completely outdated) and will fuel the religious nonsense of the second which is obviously their kick (and, let's be honest, fundamentalists and extremists groups loOoOove this type of books in order to waive their "better than thou" flag and throwing everyone who disagrees with them in the same "evil" pot).
February 19, 2018
Woman and the New Race is a summation of Mrs. Sanger's arguments for the legality of birth control and birth control information, and can be read by the 1920's lay person and policymaker alike. There are only two flaws in this book: One is that Mrs. Sanger's ideas have succeeded so well that you already know the facts Woman and the New Race presents from popular medical texts, gynecological advisings, and high school sex ed courses. The other flaw is that Woman and the New Race is a little bit racist. Mrs. Sanger begins the book with a chronicle of societys' use of abortion and infantacide, beginning with the savage races, moving up to the barbarians (who are better than savages), then the historical Europeans, and ending with the estimated million abortions in America today (i.e. 1920). Mrs. Sanger considers this a travesty, which brings us to an interesting historical tidbit: Margaret Sanger was, by our definition, pro-life. Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion. Her reasons, motives, social context, medical-historical context were different than our own. One of her formative experiences was helping a desperately poor mother of three through a painful stillbirth. The woman begged Margaret to tell her how to stop having babies, but Margaret couldn't legally, not in front of the doctor, and the doctor said, "Tell your husband to sleep on the roof. Ha ha ha." Some months later, Mrs. Sanger was present when that woman died after trying to abort herself. The abortion-performing underworld in 1920 would have been peopled by disreputable doctors and nurses, homeopaths and quacks, uncredentialed abortionists, friends with knitting needles, and pregnant women themselves, and Mrs. Sanger, I'm sure, could have written a book of abortion horror stories. She wanted contraceptive advice available to prevent women from seeking abortions and she succeeded. Abortions grew in the US from one million in 1920, peaked between 1966 and 1978 and have been steadily declining since the 1970's to 1.1 million abortions in 2013, with triple the population in the United States.
Margaret Sanger advocated family planning information for married women. Pregnant single women were a whole different kettle of fish. In reading one and a half books by her, I have not come across one line advocating the distribution of birth control information to single women, and in Woman and the New Race she takes pains to point out that her first birth control clinic, in the weeks before the police shut it down, did not serve a single single woman. Mrs. Sanger built her life helping the desperately poor married. Woman and the New Race has a whole chapter of letters from women begging Mrs. Sanger for birth control advice, women who could have managed two or three children nicely but ended up with eight, or ten, or more, not all living. Ms. Sanger breaks it down: a first child has a 25% mortality rate, the second and third around 20%, then the rate grows until the tenth child has a 60% chance of dying in its first year, unless all that childbearing has killed the mother first. Remeber in Betsy, Tacy when Tacy's littlest sister dies? Yeah. With birth control (and without the Catholic Church), Mrs. Kelly could have been saved that anguish. Margaret Sanger was not for the free and easy sexual mores that her work snowballed into over the subsequent century; she was for limiting families to a manageable number of children, to build up the health of the mother and the wanted children, and keep down the number of surplus workers who, in times of population stress, become soldiers in pointless and bloody wars, like the one which had just been fought in Europe. Woman and the New Race also includes medical information surrounding the reproductive process, but does not include her two infallible methods of birth control (what were they?), because if she had printed that, her books would have been seized and destroyed under Comstock.
http://surfeitofbooks.blogspot.com/20...
Margaret Sanger advocated family planning information for married women. Pregnant single women were a whole different kettle of fish. In reading one and a half books by her, I have not come across one line advocating the distribution of birth control information to single women, and in Woman and the New Race she takes pains to point out that her first birth control clinic, in the weeks before the police shut it down, did not serve a single single woman. Mrs. Sanger built her life helping the desperately poor married. Woman and the New Race has a whole chapter of letters from women begging Mrs. Sanger for birth control advice, women who could have managed two or three children nicely but ended up with eight, or ten, or more, not all living. Ms. Sanger breaks it down: a first child has a 25% mortality rate, the second and third around 20%, then the rate grows until the tenth child has a 60% chance of dying in its first year, unless all that childbearing has killed the mother first. Remeber in Betsy, Tacy when Tacy's littlest sister dies? Yeah. With birth control (and without the Catholic Church), Mrs. Kelly could have been saved that anguish. Margaret Sanger was not for the free and easy sexual mores that her work snowballed into over the subsequent century; she was for limiting families to a manageable number of children, to build up the health of the mother and the wanted children, and keep down the number of surplus workers who, in times of population stress, become soldiers in pointless and bloody wars, like the one which had just been fought in Europe. Woman and the New Race also includes medical information surrounding the reproductive process, but does not include her two infallible methods of birth control (what were they?), because if she had printed that, her books would have been seized and destroyed under Comstock.
http://surfeitofbooks.blogspot.com/20...
July 9, 2012
Margaret Sanger is the heroine of an often-forgotten war on women’s rights. Until recently the dissemination of birth control information (pills, condoms, you name it) was strictly forbidden, it was punishable under the Obscenity act, and nurses and doctors were frequently jailed for helping women prevent childbirth. Margaret Sanger, a nurse, stepped out in the fight, hoping that importing birth control and other information from Europe, where it had been proven both viable and was legal, would lead to a new, stronger generation of Americans. Sanger hoped that by choosing when, where, and how many children to have, motherhood would be liberated in such a way, that the personal development of American women would be able to resume again. She hoped that women would no longer be slaves to their legions of unwanted children that they had no means to provide for. Sanger’s thesis in this work revolves around the idea that limited numbers of children would put an end to abortion (which she abhorred), sweat shops, world wars, and imbecility. It’s an illuminating text because this tragic war, when so many women died from the burdens of birth (many women were giving birth to 20 children in their lifetimes), the sorrows of your child’s death, and from abortions performed in secret alleys or by dropping flour bags repeatedly onto the stomach, is so largely forgotten. It is also fascinating because it reveals how closely the birth control/woman’s rights movement was tied to the eugenics movement and the labor movement. More than that, puritanical forces in government repeatedly tried to block women access to knowledge of their own bodies, and while todays so-called “war on women” can scarcely compare to the battles that Sanger fought, many parallels will shock and concern the modern reader.
It got four stars because even though I think her argument is at time weak, or exaggerated, its a very important social/historical text that is rarely attended to.
The book is provided for free by Librivox.org.
It got four stars because even though I think her argument is at time weak, or exaggerated, its a very important social/historical text that is rarely attended to.
The book is provided for free by Librivox.org.
October 29, 2013
Interesting insight into the "birth control" movement of 1920. Looking back 90 years after the fact, widespread use of birth control has not resulted in the utopia that Margaret Sanger seemed to predict - i.e. fewer wars, elimination of the practice of abortion, increased morality and spirituality of women. Sanger also did not seriously consider the problems now facing many countries of having too many elderly (non-labor) and not enough young people (labor) to provide for the care of the elderly.
Sanger was also naive (perhaps intentionally?) in proposing that birth control was primarily being advocated for poor, overworked housewives. Clearly, one of the primary uses of birth control in the modern age has been to postpone marriage and allow for multiple "sex" partners before settling down with one.
I have heard from other sources that Margaret Sanger had some racist beliefs and hoped to eliminate the black race through birth control. If that's true, I did not see any evidence in this particular book. However, there was a definite emphasis on reducing the number of "poor" and "feebleminded" children in hopes to create a "new race."
Sanger was also naive (perhaps intentionally?) in proposing that birth control was primarily being advocated for poor, overworked housewives. Clearly, one of the primary uses of birth control in the modern age has been to postpone marriage and allow for multiple "sex" partners before settling down with one.
I have heard from other sources that Margaret Sanger had some racist beliefs and hoped to eliminate the black race through birth control. If that's true, I did not see any evidence in this particular book. However, there was a definite emphasis on reducing the number of "poor" and "feebleminded" children in hopes to create a "new race."
May 31, 2016
Margaret Sanger's batshit eugenics and birth control manifesto. Rife with idiotic nonsense, racism, supremacist bullshit, utopian delusions, misanthropy and cynicism. In other words, a perfect template for contemporary feminism. Vile and contemptible in almost every way.
full review here:
http://wp.me/p6lj8t-9X
full review here:
http://wp.me/p6lj8t-9X
March 19, 2016
This book was fascinating. Margaret Sanger was a feminist who challenged society's thinking of who women are and what they want. At some points in the book I was cheering Ms. Sanger on. At other points I was appalled at her ideas. But no matter what part of the book I was in, I was fascinated.
May 11, 2020
Becky Cook's narration of this book is excellent. I find it quite interesting to hear Sanger's arguments for women's access to birth control. I can't imagine going through Life without it! Do I agree with everything Sanger puts forth? No. For one thing, she falls for the blame-the-victim trap a bit. But she has so much good debating going on otherwise. \
Going by this book (for I have not read any other of her works), it is completely erroneous to say that Sanger's every word drips with racism or that she hates women and children. On the contrary, she clearly cared deeply about the plight of women and their children. Everything about this book is in defense of the quality of their lives. As for her version of eugenics, her argument that women's access to birth control would result in a better race was NOT talking about weeding out certain ethnicities, but of creating a strong, healthy American melting pot race that could benefit from the best attributes the immigrated races contribute, buoyed up by strong health achieved because women were not made to bear overlarge families impossible to be cared for properly.
This is a historically important work in women's history in the U.S.
Going by this book (for I have not read any other of her works), it is completely erroneous to say that Sanger's every word drips with racism or that she hates women and children. On the contrary, she clearly cared deeply about the plight of women and their children. Everything about this book is in defense of the quality of their lives. As for her version of eugenics, her argument that women's access to birth control would result in a better race was NOT talking about weeding out certain ethnicities, but of creating a strong, healthy American melting pot race that could benefit from the best attributes the immigrated races contribute, buoyed up by strong health achieved because women were not made to bear overlarge families impossible to be cared for properly.
This is a historically important work in women's history in the U.S.
July 13, 2020
Since anyone deemed insufficiently loyal to the woke progressive creed of 2020 – including, apparently, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Douglass, Matthias Baldwin, the 54th Regiment, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi, and even the poor elk in Portland – is getting their statues and memorials defaced, vandalized, toppled, or removed, I wonder if the puritanical pseudo-moral outrage brigade will ever train its gaze on Margaret Sanger's bust at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, considering some of the 'progressive' nuggets of wisdom she had to offer:
"Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock… and of the 8,398,000 who arrived in the 1900-1910 period, 2,238,000 could not read or write. Do these elements give promise of a better race?... That these foreigners who have come in hordes have brought with them their ignorance of hygiene and modern ways of living and that they are handicapped by religious superstitions is only too true… Moreover, there were in the United States in 1910, 5,516,163 illiterates. Of these less than a quarter were of pure native white stock. In some states in the South as much as 29 per cent of the population is illiterate, many of these, of course, being Negroes."
"Just how many feebleminded there are in the United States, no one knows, because no attempt has ever been made to give public care to all of them, and families are more inclined to conceal than to reveal the mental defects of their members… The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction. The close relationship between poverty and ignorance and the production of feebleminded is shown by Anne Moore, Ph.D., in a report to the Public Education Association of New York in 1911. She found that an overwhelming proportion of the classified feebleminded children in New York schools came from large families living in overcrowded slum conditions, and that only a small percentage were born of native parents."
"By all means there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing… A tendency to insanity, if not insanity itself, may be transmitted to the child, or it may be feebleminded if one of the parents is insane or suffers from any mental disorder. Drunkenness in the parent or parents has been found to be the cause of feeblemindedness in the offspring and to leave the child with a constitution too weak to resist disease as it should. No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
"Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock… and of the 8,398,000 who arrived in the 1900-1910 period, 2,238,000 could not read or write. Do these elements give promise of a better race?... That these foreigners who have come in hordes have brought with them their ignorance of hygiene and modern ways of living and that they are handicapped by religious superstitions is only too true… Moreover, there were in the United States in 1910, 5,516,163 illiterates. Of these less than a quarter were of pure native white stock. In some states in the South as much as 29 per cent of the population is illiterate, many of these, of course, being Negroes."
"Just how many feebleminded there are in the United States, no one knows, because no attempt has ever been made to give public care to all of them, and families are more inclined to conceal than to reveal the mental defects of their members… The feebleminded are notoriously prolific in reproduction. The close relationship between poverty and ignorance and the production of feebleminded is shown by Anne Moore, Ph.D., in a report to the Public Education Association of New York in 1911. She found that an overwhelming proportion of the classified feebleminded children in New York schools came from large families living in overcrowded slum conditions, and that only a small percentage were born of native parents."
"By all means there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing… A tendency to insanity, if not insanity itself, may be transmitted to the child, or it may be feebleminded if one of the parents is insane or suffers from any mental disorder. Drunkenness in the parent or parents has been found to be the cause of feeblemindedness in the offspring and to leave the child with a constitution too weak to resist disease as it should. No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
June 21, 2015
A brief summary:
"Overpopulation is the source of all of mankind's troubles. Therefore, giving woman freedom from the men and children who enslave them and allowing her 'feminine spirit' to flourish (exclusively by using birth control) will solve all of mankind's troubles. Also if most people do not have sex whenever they want their genitals will shrivel up and they will go crazy and die."
"Overpopulation is the source of all of mankind's troubles. Therefore, giving woman freedom from the men and children who enslave them and allowing her 'feminine spirit' to flourish (exclusively by using birth control) will solve all of mankind's troubles. Also if most people do not have sex whenever they want their genitals will shrivel up and they will go crazy and die."
Read
June 13, 2013I'm just getting ammunition on this eugenicist psychopath.
July 7, 2020
That was very interesting for the time period. Some views a little too far.
August 1, 2021
As a pro-life Christian, I read this book to find out what Margaret Sanger actually believed and wrote because I didn't want to get my information about her from Facebook memes and things my friends and family had "heard" about her. I was surprised to learn that at the time she wrote this book, she did NOT support abortion. She lists abortion alongside infanticide and child abandonment as "horrors" (p.12), though she makes a contradictory statement on p.48: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it" (which seems to be her solution for large families who find themselves in such poverty that they are unable to care for everyone and the child's future looks bleak). This statement honestly seemed out of place with the rest of her arguments throughout the book, which were against killing children. Examples:
- She describes abortion as "inflicting injury upon themselves [women’s bodies], their children and the community, and undergoing an abhorrent operation which kills the tenderness and delicacy of womanhood, even as it may injure or kill the body" (p.59).
- She admits "in an abortion there is always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient" (p.95) and lists the damage that can be done to a woman's body during an abortion.
- She calls "the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization" (p.96).
- She was against drugs that cause abortions (pp.96-97).
- She calls the baby inside the womb an “unborn child” (p.97), implying its humanity, and describes the effects of abortion drugs on him/her. She describes life beginning at conception: "If no children are desired, the meeting of the male sperm and the ovum must be prevented. When scientific means are employed to prevent this meeting, one is said to practice birth control. The means used is known as a contraceptive. If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and the development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion" (p.95).
- She certainly wouldn’t align with those who brag about their abortions today, as she calls the practice “the agony of abortion” (p.140), an “absurd cruelty” (p.145), and “killing of babies in the womb by abortion” (p.171).
Sanger advocates for the use of contraceptives and quotes Dr. Hirsch that “contraceptive measures are important weapons in the fight against abortion” (p.98). Birth control (the kind that prevents conception, not abortifacients) is the main thrust of her book. She makes a compelling argument for not pumping out as many children as you can if you are not able to adequately care for them, providing statistics (from the early 1900's) that by the time you're at your 10th child, the likelihood of him/her dying during their first year is close to 50% (p.48). Also, medical care was limited at the time, so there were many deaths from childbirth.
There’s a lot more to say about the book, but given that she is perhaps most often associated with abortion, I thought it valuable to focus the review on that.
- She describes abortion as "inflicting injury upon themselves [women’s bodies], their children and the community, and undergoing an abhorrent operation which kills the tenderness and delicacy of womanhood, even as it may injure or kill the body" (p.59).
- She admits "in an abortion there is always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient" (p.95) and lists the damage that can be done to a woman's body during an abortion.
- She calls "the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization" (p.96).
- She was against drugs that cause abortions (pp.96-97).
- She calls the baby inside the womb an “unborn child” (p.97), implying its humanity, and describes the effects of abortion drugs on him/her. She describes life beginning at conception: "If no children are desired, the meeting of the male sperm and the ovum must be prevented. When scientific means are employed to prevent this meeting, one is said to practice birth control. The means used is known as a contraceptive. If, however, a contraceptive is not used and the sperm meets the ovule and the development begins, any attempt at removing it or stopping its further growth is called abortion" (p.95).
- She certainly wouldn’t align with those who brag about their abortions today, as she calls the practice “the agony of abortion” (p.140), an “absurd cruelty” (p.145), and “killing of babies in the womb by abortion” (p.171).
Sanger advocates for the use of contraceptives and quotes Dr. Hirsch that “contraceptive measures are important weapons in the fight against abortion” (p.98). Birth control (the kind that prevents conception, not abortifacients) is the main thrust of her book. She makes a compelling argument for not pumping out as many children as you can if you are not able to adequately care for them, providing statistics (from the early 1900's) that by the time you're at your 10th child, the likelihood of him/her dying during their first year is close to 50% (p.48). Also, medical care was limited at the time, so there were many deaths from childbirth.
There’s a lot more to say about the book, but given that she is perhaps most often associated with abortion, I thought it valuable to focus the review on that.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 20, 2022
Wow! Pay no attention to the reactionary reviews of those whose minds have been twisted by propaganda – read this book instead and encounter Margaret Sanger in her own words. I am appalled by the amount she has been slandered, and the deliberate mishearing of her arguments. This is a passionate cry for birth control, stating the societal ills that come about when women cannot choose motherhood, and are forced to have sex and bear children against their will with no knowledge of their bodies, forced into increasing ill-health, forced to bear increasingly ill children. Her push is for a voluntary motherhood. Considering how society improved by leaps and bounds since birth control became common, can anyone doubt her words?
A note on racism and eugenics: It has become common to slander Margaret Sanger by claiming she is a racist and a eugenicist. The racism comes from an appallingly doctored quote. (It is not from this book, but it is relevant to show the extent of the propaganda applied against her) It is spread that Margaret Sanger said this: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Actually, the full context, in a letter that she wrote regarding her outreach to black ministers to help her reach the black community regarding birth control, was this: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” which means the exact opposite of the doctored quote.
As for eugenics, while we have the value of hindsight regarding the role of eugenics in horrific historical movements such as Nazism, Margaret Sanger was not a Nazi. Furthermore, I think there is context to her views that people today are utterly missing. In her day, because birth control was banned, women with tuberculosis and syphilis would give birth, and their conditions would affect their children. Furthermore, women would give birth so frequently it would deplete their health, and the health of their children. This is the context for her perspective. Obviously disabled children born today should be cherished, and thankfully this is the modern position, but would any modern person consider it moral for a women to drink copious amounts of alcohol during pregnancy and shrug her shoulders at the resulting baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome? This does not mean the resulting baby is a lesser human or anything like that, but it does mean that women engaging in drugs and alcohol during pregnancy that can affect their children with lifelong conditions is immoral. This is more of the context of her perspective. It is immoral to force women to give birth in a situation where the birth destroys the women's own health, but also drastically affects the health of the baby with lifelong conditions and possibly death. I do not see how anyone could possibly be against such a position.
A note on racism and eugenics: It has become common to slander Margaret Sanger by claiming she is a racist and a eugenicist. The racism comes from an appallingly doctored quote. (It is not from this book, but it is relevant to show the extent of the propaganda applied against her) It is spread that Margaret Sanger said this: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Actually, the full context, in a letter that she wrote regarding her outreach to black ministers to help her reach the black community regarding birth control, was this: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” which means the exact opposite of the doctored quote.
As for eugenics, while we have the value of hindsight regarding the role of eugenics in horrific historical movements such as Nazism, Margaret Sanger was not a Nazi. Furthermore, I think there is context to her views that people today are utterly missing. In her day, because birth control was banned, women with tuberculosis and syphilis would give birth, and their conditions would affect their children. Furthermore, women would give birth so frequently it would deplete their health, and the health of their children. This is the context for her perspective. Obviously disabled children born today should be cherished, and thankfully this is the modern position, but would any modern person consider it moral for a women to drink copious amounts of alcohol during pregnancy and shrug her shoulders at the resulting baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome? This does not mean the resulting baby is a lesser human or anything like that, but it does mean that women engaging in drugs and alcohol during pregnancy that can affect their children with lifelong conditions is immoral. This is more of the context of her perspective. It is immoral to force women to give birth in a situation where the birth destroys the women's own health, but also drastically affects the health of the baby with lifelong conditions and possibly death. I do not see how anyone could possibly be against such a position.
February 28, 2023
Many people -- especially those against Planned Parenthood -- talk about Margaret Sanger as if she's America's Hitler because of her views on eugenics and her association with Planned Parenthood. I would prefer to read what she says for herself rather than what other say about her.
Many of her opponents would be surprised to find that she was against abortion, which, in her time, was performed illegally and was only safe for those who could afford good doctors. She thought that the availability of contraception would eliminate the need for abortion, and she would likely be disappointed that that did not come to be.
What I got out of this book is that Margaret Sanger was an advocate for contraception, which she believed would improve women's lives and strengthen motherhood, decrease poverty, lead to an improved human race, and provide less fodder for the war machine and the labor market.
As for her interest in eugenics, she thought that having less children would lead to a stronger human race. She was not talking about actually eliminating living people or even about abortion (which, this book makes clear, she was against). This book is over 100 years old, and pre-dates Hitler and the Nazis. What extremists would do with eugenics was not known yet, so she cannot be blamed for that.
I've also heard Margaret Sanger accused of racism. That is not really addressed in this book, but, as I said, Ms. Sanger was promoting contraception, and I've read apart from this book that she wanted to make contraception available to African-Americans, and she had the support of none other than Martin Luther King, Jr., so, while I will read more about her, I question the idea that she was a racist in regard to her activism.
That is not to say that this is a gentle book. Our 21st century sensibilities may be offended by the harshness. Ms. Sanger believed that contraception was the way to strengthen the human race and that there would be fewer people with weaknesses. What she does not address is that, when a woman has less children, she can show more attention to a child with disabilities, and that might have been a better way to talk about this issue.
Ms. Sanger was an activist with strong views, and, even if some things she says come off as harsh, I do not believe she deserves some of the vitriol aimed at her.
Many of her opponents would be surprised to find that she was against abortion, which, in her time, was performed illegally and was only safe for those who could afford good doctors. She thought that the availability of contraception would eliminate the need for abortion, and she would likely be disappointed that that did not come to be.
What I got out of this book is that Margaret Sanger was an advocate for contraception, which she believed would improve women's lives and strengthen motherhood, decrease poverty, lead to an improved human race, and provide less fodder for the war machine and the labor market.
As for her interest in eugenics, she thought that having less children would lead to a stronger human race. She was not talking about actually eliminating living people or even about abortion (which, this book makes clear, she was against). This book is over 100 years old, and pre-dates Hitler and the Nazis. What extremists would do with eugenics was not known yet, so she cannot be blamed for that.
I've also heard Margaret Sanger accused of racism. That is not really addressed in this book, but, as I said, Ms. Sanger was promoting contraception, and I've read apart from this book that she wanted to make contraception available to African-Americans, and she had the support of none other than Martin Luther King, Jr., so, while I will read more about her, I question the idea that she was a racist in regard to her activism.
That is not to say that this is a gentle book. Our 21st century sensibilities may be offended by the harshness. Ms. Sanger believed that contraception was the way to strengthen the human race and that there would be fewer people with weaknesses. What she does not address is that, when a woman has less children, she can show more attention to a child with disabilities, and that might have been a better way to talk about this issue.
Ms. Sanger was an activist with strong views, and, even if some things she says come off as harsh, I do not believe she deserves some of the vitriol aimed at her.
August 9, 2023
I want to start by saying that although I gave this five stars, I do not share the author’s opinion in everything. I do not think abortion is a moral problem, and I think the book does a lot of victim-blaming, simultaneously acknowledging marriage used to be little more than “legalized prostitution” where the wife has no choices during sex, but the also blaming them for not taking more control of their motherhood.
However, the book does have a lot of points that are unfortunately still relevant today. You cannot advocate against abortion and also against birth control. Women should be able to choose if they want to be a mother, and if so how many children they want. There is a lot of progress though, and now almost all women have at least basic knowledge of conception and birth control. Doctors can freely prescribe birth control to anyone who wants it, and sex educators no longer have to fear imprisonment.
However, the book does have a lot of points that are unfortunately still relevant today. You cannot advocate against abortion and also against birth control. Women should be able to choose if they want to be a mother, and if so how many children they want. There is a lot of progress though, and now almost all women have at least basic knowledge of conception and birth control. Doctors can freely prescribe birth control to anyone who wants it, and sex educators no longer have to fear imprisonment.
September 17, 2022
This book is by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and famous racist, feminist, and eugenicist. This book would require an essay to unpack, but her major thesis was that access to birth control would end “child slavery, prostitution, feeblemindedness, physical deterioration, hunger, oppression and war.” We all know how that turned out.
Surprisingly, she drew the line at abortion though. She described it as “extreme,” “violent,” “an abhorrent operation,” “repulsive, “abnormal,” and a “horror.”
Surprisingly, she drew the line at abortion though. She described it as “extreme,” “violent,” “an abhorrent operation,” “repulsive, “abnormal,” and a “horror.”
September 1, 2020
This is an interesting left wing (before it was coopted by big business and infected by critical school), feminist, and humanist book advocating for birth control as a panacea for war, crime, and other social ills. Sanger's vision of voluntary birth control has largely failed, however, as idiots and fundies not using birth control are still popping them out like hot cakes. Her utopian vision requires an authoritarian state a la China with the 1 child policy for proper execution.
August 19, 2021
This book focused on women’s reproduction and its relationship between men and women. This was not surprising if you have heard about Margaret Sanger from a historical perspective. So in a way I knew what I would be getting into, but at the same time I was hoping that she would expand into large issues around women of the time period. Everything she talks about in the book we take for granted in present times.
August 12, 2022
So I actually found things I agreed with in here, but on the whole the book is really into eugenics and it's also not very consequent. One chapter, abortion and infanticide will be evil, but also a way women try to free themselves from bondage, another chapter it will be completely evil, and then later on it's fine...
February 10, 2024
Picked this up to learn more about Margaret Sanger's thoughts as they relate to birth control and a woman's right to choose motherhood, much of which is applicable even today. Definitely didn't plan to encounter eugenics...
July 30, 2018
The founder of planned parenthood advocated for birth control but for all the wrong reasons. (eugenics)
Surprisingly, she was anti-abortion.
Surprisingly, she was anti-abortion.
March 10, 2019
Great ideas, and forward thinking for the time, but very repetitive.
February 26, 2024
This book is an inspired "rant" that even being published over 100 years age is sharply reverent today..
July 21, 2022
One of my ultimate favorite's, she was the first to pioneer the woman's movement in the advancement of birth control. Having personally been professionally involved in the marketing and promotion of two top birth control pills from 1993 to 2001, this book was one of the first acquisitions in my library on the history of woman's health. She passed away in 1966. Topics include...Abortion, Large Families, Two Classes of Woman, Legislation, Struggle for Freedom.
Want to read
July 6, 2009This book was mentioned in a documentary about the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. I'd like to read it for myself.
Want to read
June 24, 2013epub version
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews