This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
What evidence is there for this? Did Sanger really think feminist ideals supported eugenics? Citation is needed. Poodleboy ( talk) 08:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it encyclopedic to mention a person's brothers and sisters? Of 11 children, Margaret had 10 brothers and sisters: Ethel, Henry George McGlynn, John, Joseph, Lawrence, Mary, Nan, Richard, Robert, and Thomas. Is this controversial? Progressingamerica ( talk) 16:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Since Sanger and the organization she founded are so frequently attacked by "pro-lifers" and so ardently praised and defended by "pro-choicers", it seems kind of strange to me that her views on abortion aren't a subtopic in this article. Are they even mentioned? Motsebboh ( talk) 19:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I welcome Motsebboh's research into secondary sources on this matter. Our article says "She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal.[citation needed] She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided." This suggest that if abortions were safe and legal her opposition would disappear. I haven't found evidence of that. In her Autobiography she does visit other countries where abortion is common and often legal. Her travels to France she was impressed with the limitation of family size mainly by contraceptives. “All individual Frenchwomen considered this knowledge their individual right, and, if it failed, abortion, which was still common.” In Weimar Germany she spoke with a doctor and asked “[isn’t abortion] a ridiculous substitute for contraceptives?” “To my horror he replied, ‘We will never give over the control of our numbers to the women themselves.’” As a feminist she was appalled. But it was the USSR, in the 1930s where abortion was legal and widely available that sheds light on her views. She notes that despite their “fine technique for abortions …in my opinion it is a cruel method of dealing with the problem because abortion, no matter how well done, is a terrific nervous strain and an exhausting physical hardship.” She repeatedly cites the dangers of abortion as a motivation for birth control regardless of the legal status. I don't see her ever entertaining the possibility of safe legal abortion. Still, we can't do original research by going to her autobiography. We have to rely on the biographies done by others. Take a look at the literature. Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica spells her middle name as "Louisa", so does the New York Times. Should this wiki page be corrected? [4] [5]
In the Eugenics section, there is a sentence that says: "Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program. [1]" I checked the source, but I'm skeptical about the impartiality of the source and the somewhat defensive tone of the article. Should this be something to be concerned about? Akim17 ( talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
It's odd that there is almost nothing in the article about the last twenty-or-so years of Sanger's life. I'm hardly an expert on it, but I know that she was still involved in some notable controversies, particularly her notion that postwar Europe should completely stop reproducing for a decade: [7] [8]. Also, nothing about her later life personal struggles: an over-reliance on pain medication (acknowledged by her doctor son) and dementia in her last few years. Motsebboh ( talk) 20:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I consulted two books to clarify Sanger’s view on eugenics in the context of the idea as it was evolving during her heyday. According to Peter C. Engelman, “Sanger, in the late 1910s and early 1920s, steered the movement away from its radical, feminist beginnings in an attempt to gain medical and scientific approval for the health and eugenic benefits of birth control.” (p.xxi) Carole Ruth McCann, argues “As a reputable science, eugenics provided the birth control movement with an authoritative language through which to legitimate women’s rights to contraception. By situating birth control within the eugenic terrain of racial betterment, Sanger appropriated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control … as she also pointed out, eugenicists and birth control advocates put ‘emphasis upon different methods.’” (p.100)
Both authors, however, differentiate between different strains of eugenics and note that the popular view of eugenics was quite different from the view we hold today. McCann notes that “… popular movements, such as those for sex education, sanitation, prenatal culture, prevention of venereal disease, and pure milk for babies, appropriated eugenics to their causes.” (p.14-15) Sanger’s view added an economic component. “Sanger’s articulation of the economic ethic of fertility served as a counterargument to the rigid hereditarianism of eugenic ideology … Eugenicists tended to represent cultural and class differences as the fixed biological characteristics of race. … Sanger disputed this eugenic hereditarianism, arguing that environmental differences, such as economic deprivations, were the principal causes of social degeneracy. Racial betterment, or social progress, depended upon an environment that sustained mental and physical health. Application of the economic ethic of fertility would help to support such an environment. … Through out the 1910s and 1920s Sangerists constantly had to rebut the eugenically invectives that old-stock women should increase their fertility before they committed race suicide. … [for example] Theodore Roosevelt …” For Sanger this would result in a “cradle competition” between the classes. Instead society would be better if “women were allowed to adjust their fertility to match their family income …” (p16-17)
The notion of a eugenics based on improving environmental factors is known as Lamarckism, the notion that acquired traits could be passed on; this was soon to be abandoned in the field of biology. McCann explains “Drawing primarily from radical British eugenicists, Sanger’s articulation were not biologically determinist. She located the causes of racial decay in economic environmentalism and conventional sexual morality. … The scientific authority of eugenics lent weight to Sangerist challenges to the conventional religious condemnation of contraception as unnatural. Eugenic expertise for population studies lent weight to Sangerists’ data against the medical profession’s charges of amateurism. … Using eugenic logic and nomenclature, Sanger constituted women who used contraception as authors of racial betterment, thereby linking birth control to the racial maternalism of welfare feminists. … Sangerists resisted the eugenicists’ equation of poverty with ethnic inferiority and the extreme proposals of white supremacists who wished to increase fertility rates of white, middle-class women.“ (p.101)
McCann points out “… most lay people [in the 1910s] still held some version of belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Thus within Progressive ideology, the relationship between environment and heredity was quite elastic.” (p.102) “Mendelian genetics … by the late 1920s discredited most of the specific hereditarian principles underlying eugenic theory, the American eugenics movement increasingly ignored any influence that the environment might have on human traits, taking all socially important characteristics to be biologically determined. In Britain the eugenics movement was torn asunder by disagreements over Mendelian genetics.” (p.103) Sanger derived her eugenic ideas from the radical wing of the British eugenics movement, in particular from Havelock Ellis. (p.104) Engelman notes: “Neither Sanger nor the [birth control] movement as a whole defined fitness in racial terms, as did a number of leading eugenicists who assumed that race and ethnicity determined behavior and then manufactured or modified research results to prove it. [Americans] Charles Davenport … Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant relied on flawed intelligence tests and dubious ‘scientific’ observations and genetic analysis about specific racial groups to declare certain races, blacks and Jews especially, inferior.” (p.135)
Engelman says: “Sanger’s concerns centered on the economic status and health conditions of new immigrants and the country’s ability to absorb, educate, and employ them, rather than on immigrant’s particular ethnicity.” (p.135, see also Chesler p.195-6) McCann says Sanger “always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms.” (p.117) Sanger’s views were based on “an ‘economic ethic’ … of having only as many children as one can afford.” (p.13,16-21)
From this study I inserted the following paragraph in the “Eugenics” section: Sanger’s view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one’s progeny. Consequently, she rejected race and ethnicity as determining factors. Instead she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one’s economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race. Sanger’s view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport who took a racist view of inherited traits. She continually rejected their approach. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Joppa Chong, just for the record, the article does mention Sanger's speech to the Ku Klux Klan auxiliary in the section on the American Birth Control League. Motsebboh ( talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
C'mon guys get serious. Motsebboh gives us a comic book as a reference. Joppa Chong, your reference is an article addressing the Black genocide conspiracy theory and as such it should be covered in that article. Neither the Chesler nor Baker biographies considered the KKK meeting note worthy. Now, Motsebboh, you ask a good question about Sanger including the meeting in her autobiography. She also included her meeting with Gandhi which we don't mention. Let's compare. She meet with women of the KKK but not the male leadership or policy makers. With her meeting with Gandhi and Nehru, she is meeting India's future leaders. Both the Chesler and Baker bios have 5 pages. I say we delete the KKK and insert her meeting with Gandhi. Anyone? Jason from nyc ( talk) 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There's probably another Apologetic around. We haven't got a source calling an Angela Davis statement regarding Sanger's black people extermination remark erroneous, not to mention a consensus. So we cannot present it as a fact that Davis was wrong. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 05:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop me if you've been over this before, but shouldn't the article point out that she opposed abortion? She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious," a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years. Much of this is supported by this article from a RIGHT-WING, PRO-LIFE web site--which you would expect would OPPOSE MS in every possible way-- (RedState) http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/ I'm assuming there's a good reason the Wikipedia article doesn't already mention this, so I'm not gonna insert it yet, but I'd like to know what the good reason is. Thanks! HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I had reverted a lot of edits of User:Ihardlythinkso but he decided to reinstate them. To my opinion, it was really not an improvement of the article. But the editor is showing off a massive battleground mentality. Please, review my revert. The Banner talk 13:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems like you're both a little more hostile about this than the situation warrants: the typographical changes look to have been positive, and I agree with moving the sentence about her being widely recognized for birth control up. The block quotes do bother me, as they lend emphasis to things Sanger said or wrote that I'm not sure are deserving of that much emphasis, and may have been added by someone who is hostile to singers legacy in an attempt to make her look bad (which is a longstanding problem with the article). But the solution there is probably to trim or remove undue quotes, rather than formatting changes. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of IHTS's changes are either neutral or improvements, but " She is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement." is probably better at the end of the lede section since it is not a title or position she actually served, but more of a summary seen in historical retrospect. The lengthy quote about chronic maturbators could use both a trim and a bit of historical context, but I am no expert on that. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.", and 2) there was already some text qualifying notability in the 1st para, so it seemed/seems a bit redundant (and also a bit odd/out of place) to attempt to restate again at end of lede in last sentence. -- IHTS ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
conspiracy theory from single-purpose IP account |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Margaret Sanger received money from Nazi Germany in support of her liquidation of minority races from 1933 to December of 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:CDA6:12ED:AAB9:B0EE ( talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Read "Birth control and racial betterment" by Margaret Sanger. She quite clearly spells out the future of the black race and its liquidation by use of abortion. The Nazi connections to Margret Sanger were so close they changed the name of her killing group during WW2 to separate from those Nazi connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A47C:2934:B024:3D2B ( talk) 11:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Over 13 million black children have died from MArgret Sangers final solution for the black race. This happened in 1942 just after the Nazis declared war on the USA in December of 1941. As it would be treason to accept money from Hitlers Nazis they had to change the name to get more money from other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A47C:2934:B024:3D2B ( talk) 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
Rare to protect a talkpage, even temporarily. Regrettably necessary in this case. Apologies to any legitimate IP editors who wanted to contribute here; please feel free to come back when the protection expires. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, nor are talk pages suitable places for publishing original research. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context? It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation's history, we are the people most frequently described as "unfit" and "feebleminded." Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did. Like Many Modern Feminists, Sanger Ignored Race and Class Would the NAACP's house organ, Crisis Magazine, print articles by members of the Ku Klux Klan? Would Planned Parenthood publish articles penned by fetal protectionist South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham? The articled published in the Birth Control Review showed Sanger's empathy with some eugenicist views. Margaret Sanger worked closely with W. E. B. DuBois on her "Negro Project," an effort to expose Southern black women to birth control. Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. were also involved in the effort. Much later, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented the organization's efforts. It is entirely possible that Sanger Ôs views evolved over time. Certainly, by the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States. This evolution, however commendable, does not eradicate the impact of her earlier statements. What, then, is Sanger's legacy? The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has grown to an organization with 129 affiliates. It operates 875 health centers and serves about 5 million women each year. Planned Parenthood has been a leader in the fight for women's right to choose and in providing access to affordable reproductive health care for a cross-section of women. Planned Parenthood has not supported forced sterilization or restricted immigration and has gently rejected the most extreme of Sanger's views. In many ways, Sanger is no different from contemporary feminists who, after making the customary acknowledgement of issues dealing with race and class, return to analysis that focuses exclusively on gender. These are the feminists who feel that women should come together around "women's issues" and battle out our differences later. In failing to acknowledge differences and the differential impact of a set of policies, these feminists make it difficult for women to come together. Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic. That's reason enough to suggest that her leadership was flawed and her legacy crippled by her insensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.192.209 ( talk) 20:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
How can you suppress all the factual negative input your "site" has received???? Revisionist history - just like Papa Joe Stalin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.192.209 ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
When Sanger died in sept of 1966 the klu klux klan declared a national day of morning. Sanger efforts to kill off the black race was way more effectivethan anything than the KKK ever did. The KKK flower arrangement was the biggest at her funeral by far.
Actually Margret Sanger was a 40 year member of the KKK from her May of 1926 speech to the Woman's branch of the KKK till September 1966 at her death. She received life membership for giving the speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:BD1A:25C7:F0AE:8DEE ( talk) 02:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I should be I have a PHD in history and did my doctoral thesis on Margaret Sanger and her Nazi and KKK connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:3517:8C7A:6809:6555 ( talk) 13:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is odd. I came here to find some info about her children, but, well, nothing but the sound of crickets. (Silence.) Did I miss it? There is good stuff at https://books.google.com/books?id=vbQa8tnhr1EC&pg=PA7#v=snippet&q=children&f=false . Why isn't it being used? Sorry, I know that I am allowed to edit this article, but I am awfully busy with some other writing, so I cede the responsibility to somebody else interested in making this a better article. Yours in Wikdome, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Any thoughts on explicitly mentioning "Women of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America"? The reason why I am requesting this is that my book is referenced several times throughout the article but has no mention under the "Legacy" section. EllenChesler ( talk) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Suggested edit for last line of this section:
"In spite of such controversies, Sanger continues to be regarded by historians and reproductive rights activists as a force in the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement."
Is this acceptable or do you want a footnote to specific people? Hmprescott ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign...." The MSPP's interpretation of the controversial Sanger quote is widely accepted among historians and probably correct; however, the cited newsletters reveal that the MSPP is a pro-choice organization with an ideological investment in defending Sanger's legacy. For example, the first citation, "The Demonization of Margaret Sanger" repeatedly refers to anti-abortion organizations as "anti-choice groups," a pejorative epithet rejected by anti-abortion advocates. It also acknowledges that Sanger's grandson was both the president of Planned Parenthood of NYC and a member of the MSPP's advisory board at the time the newsletter was written. I suggest that the innocent explanation for Sanger's "exterminate" quote should remain, but a more neutral source should be used: e.g., http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/ or http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate help with appropriate sourcing.)
In addition, the second half of the sentence, "conspiracy theorists have fraudulently attempted to exploit the quotation 'as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will'," is tendentious, and I suggest that it be deleted or carefully reworked. The source of the quote in this passage is again the MFPP. On the other hand, both Time (linked above) and the Washington Post describe the controversial Sanger sentence as "inartfully written." Sanger's "exterminate the Negro" quote is certainly capable of honest misinterpretation as well as "fraudulent exploitation." Omitting the former explanation for the misuse of Sanger's words while using the language of an ideologically slanted reference to assert the latter smacks of bias. 173.73.58.75 ( talk) 03:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree about her support of African American Civil Rights. The problem is with the discussion of her one quote, "We don’t want the 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," and the biased source for that discussion. It seems to me that present-day readers ignorant of historical context could and do misconstrue this particular quote in good faith. Her association with racist members of the contemporary eugenics movement also seems to have contributed to the fairly widespread misapprehension that Sanger herself was racist. If reliable, non-partisan sources exist for the claim that the racist interpretation of Sanger's quote was put forth by conspiracy theorists, these sources should be cited instead of MSPP, and the group that originally promulgated the conspiracy theory should be named, if possible. Claiming that the political use of this misinterpretation is strictly a right-wing phenomenon is also inaccurate, as
Angela Davis was also misled by Sanger's statement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.73.58.75 (
talk)
11:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Re why people would be swayed - nearly everyone suffers from confirmation bias. I'll put my hand up: I'd never read enough about Sanger's biography to know of her Civil Rights connections, but as a pro-lifer, I never before questioned the popular (in my circles) sound byte that Sanger was particularly interested in suppressing black births. When I came across an article that seemed to contradict that assumption, I came to Wikipedia to get the facts. I'm extremely grateful to have been corrected, but I'm not grateful that I had to check multiple references to become convinced because Wikipedia's sole source for its rebuttal of my erroneous beliefs was full of language insulting people like me and questioning our motives. That is why I suggested the changes above. An encyclopedia can best serve the truth (and in this case defend Sanger's legacy from ignorance like mine!) if its readers feel assured that it is not written to serve a political agenda.
Once again, the MSPP references in this paragraph should be replaced, not just supplemented, by unbiased ones, and the reference to "fraud" and "conspiracy" should be deleted or supported by better sources. MSPP seems like an essentially reliable source of scholarship on Sanger's life and work, but it cannot be trusted as a source on pro-life interpretations of Sanger for the same reason that a group that refers to pro-choice people as "anti-life" cannot be trusted as a source on pro-choice advocates' motives and ideas - even if the rest of its scholarship is sound.
I don't want to derail this topic's focus on these suggested edits, but if you regard Sanger's association with the eugenics movement as "supposed and superficial," you may be suffering from some confirmation bias of your own, MarkB. The "Eugenics" section of this article makes interesting reading. 67.108.126.82 ( talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I’m familiar with the intellectual history of eugenics, 67; in the future, kindly restrict your commentary to proposed edits, not editors. The Wikipedia article already includes many sources that confirm Sanger’s deep and abiding involvement with the civil rights movement, but you are free to add additional sources if you like; they are not difficult to find. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This article could not be any more biased than it already is. Thankfully, the Polish wikipedia entry about Margaret Sanger is more reliable. May I aks where is the quotation about the "human weed"? Even if it appeared, am I right to suppose that someone will make a convoluted attempt to rationalise this phrasing and attest--with the aid of equally partisan MSPP--that this sort of narration was prevalent at the time and she was, despite all evidence, inculpable? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
176.221.121.210 (
talk)
15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding work with the African American Community, would including material on Martin Luther King, Jr's receipt of the Margaret Sanger Award be appropriate here? http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/family-planning-special-and-urgent-concern Hmprescott ( talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Was her husband William Sanger Jewish ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C40:14C:7D5C:5D40:2CF:132 ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Sanger was a well known atheist. This is not even mentioned. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 01:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This statement is in the lede: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion, although Planned Parenthood did not begin providing abortions until 1970, after Sanger had already died.
As no legal abortions could be done prior to Roe V Wade, this statement is a red herring and seeks to discredit the accusers by throwing up a false statement.
A more accurate statement pulled from the information within the current text which defines Sanger's espoused anti-abortion philosophy, would be something like: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. However, Sanger clearly drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was staunch anti-abortionist through the bulk of her career."
Opinions? Ckruschke ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke
Hi Gerntrash. I've reverted your removal of the following
which you suggested was unsupported by the source, and I wanted to explain why. The source says:
In respectable circles, illegal abortion was universally condemned as primitive, dangerous, and disreputable, and this was clearly the reason why Margaret reversed the endorsement of the procedure she had made in her Woman Rebel days.(p271)
I think this is fairly clear support for the statement in our article. Cheers, Basie ( talk) 03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Woman's experiences must be many and varied, but above all she must assume control over her own body that she alone shall decide her needs and if motherhood is among them--let her accept it, but if not--then let her reject it at any cost.[13]
During fourteen years experience as a trained nurse, I found that a great percentage of women's diseases were due to ignorance of the means to prevent conception. I found that quackery was thriving on this ignorance, and that thousands of abortions were being performed each year-- principally upon the women of the working class. Since the laws deter reliable and expert surgeons from performing abortions, working women have always been thrown into the hands of the incompetent, with fatal results. The deaths from abortions mount very high.
Many doctors also feared, or perhaps themselves shared, the public's still common confusion between contraception and abortion. Health professionals, especially in cities like New York, were increasingly concerned about their inability to reduce the country's appallingly high rates of maternal mortality, and they blamed the problem in part on the numbers of women dying from complications of illegal or self-induced abortion. In respectable circles, illegal abortion was universally condemned as primitive, dangerous, and disreputable, and this was clearly the reason why Margaret reversed the endorsement of the procedure she had made in her Woman Rebel days.Chesler, Ellen. Woman of valor. p. 271.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
What evidence is there for this? Did Sanger really think feminist ideals supported eugenics? Citation is needed. Poodleboy ( talk) 08:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it encyclopedic to mention a person's brothers and sisters? Of 11 children, Margaret had 10 brothers and sisters: Ethel, Henry George McGlynn, John, Joseph, Lawrence, Mary, Nan, Richard, Robert, and Thomas. Is this controversial? Progressingamerica ( talk) 16:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Since Sanger and the organization she founded are so frequently attacked by "pro-lifers" and so ardently praised and defended by "pro-choicers", it seems kind of strange to me that her views on abortion aren't a subtopic in this article. Are they even mentioned? Motsebboh ( talk) 19:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I welcome Motsebboh's research into secondary sources on this matter. Our article says "She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal.[citation needed] She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided." This suggest that if abortions were safe and legal her opposition would disappear. I haven't found evidence of that. In her Autobiography she does visit other countries where abortion is common and often legal. Her travels to France she was impressed with the limitation of family size mainly by contraceptives. “All individual Frenchwomen considered this knowledge their individual right, and, if it failed, abortion, which was still common.” In Weimar Germany she spoke with a doctor and asked “[isn’t abortion] a ridiculous substitute for contraceptives?” “To my horror he replied, ‘We will never give over the control of our numbers to the women themselves.’” As a feminist she was appalled. But it was the USSR, in the 1930s where abortion was legal and widely available that sheds light on her views. She notes that despite their “fine technique for abortions …in my opinion it is a cruel method of dealing with the problem because abortion, no matter how well done, is a terrific nervous strain and an exhausting physical hardship.” She repeatedly cites the dangers of abortion as a motivation for birth control regardless of the legal status. I don't see her ever entertaining the possibility of safe legal abortion. Still, we can't do original research by going to her autobiography. We have to rely on the biographies done by others. Take a look at the literature. Jason from nyc ( talk) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica spells her middle name as "Louisa", so does the New York Times. Should this wiki page be corrected? [4] [5]
In the Eugenics section, there is a sentence that says: "Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program. [1]" I checked the source, but I'm skeptical about the impartiality of the source and the somewhat defensive tone of the article. Should this be something to be concerned about? Akim17 ( talk) 16:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
It's odd that there is almost nothing in the article about the last twenty-or-so years of Sanger's life. I'm hardly an expert on it, but I know that she was still involved in some notable controversies, particularly her notion that postwar Europe should completely stop reproducing for a decade: [7] [8]. Also, nothing about her later life personal struggles: an over-reliance on pain medication (acknowledged by her doctor son) and dementia in her last few years. Motsebboh ( talk) 20:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I consulted two books to clarify Sanger’s view on eugenics in the context of the idea as it was evolving during her heyday. According to Peter C. Engelman, “Sanger, in the late 1910s and early 1920s, steered the movement away from its radical, feminist beginnings in an attempt to gain medical and scientific approval for the health and eugenic benefits of birth control.” (p.xxi) Carole Ruth McCann, argues “As a reputable science, eugenics provided the birth control movement with an authoritative language through which to legitimate women’s rights to contraception. By situating birth control within the eugenic terrain of racial betterment, Sanger appropriated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control … as she also pointed out, eugenicists and birth control advocates put ‘emphasis upon different methods.’” (p.100)
Both authors, however, differentiate between different strains of eugenics and note that the popular view of eugenics was quite different from the view we hold today. McCann notes that “… popular movements, such as those for sex education, sanitation, prenatal culture, prevention of venereal disease, and pure milk for babies, appropriated eugenics to their causes.” (p.14-15) Sanger’s view added an economic component. “Sanger’s articulation of the economic ethic of fertility served as a counterargument to the rigid hereditarianism of eugenic ideology … Eugenicists tended to represent cultural and class differences as the fixed biological characteristics of race. … Sanger disputed this eugenic hereditarianism, arguing that environmental differences, such as economic deprivations, were the principal causes of social degeneracy. Racial betterment, or social progress, depended upon an environment that sustained mental and physical health. Application of the economic ethic of fertility would help to support such an environment. … Through out the 1910s and 1920s Sangerists constantly had to rebut the eugenically invectives that old-stock women should increase their fertility before they committed race suicide. … [for example] Theodore Roosevelt …” For Sanger this would result in a “cradle competition” between the classes. Instead society would be better if “women were allowed to adjust their fertility to match their family income …” (p16-17)
The notion of a eugenics based on improving environmental factors is known as Lamarckism, the notion that acquired traits could be passed on; this was soon to be abandoned in the field of biology. McCann explains “Drawing primarily from radical British eugenicists, Sanger’s articulation were not biologically determinist. She located the causes of racial decay in economic environmentalism and conventional sexual morality. … The scientific authority of eugenics lent weight to Sangerist challenges to the conventional religious condemnation of contraception as unnatural. Eugenic expertise for population studies lent weight to Sangerists’ data against the medical profession’s charges of amateurism. … Using eugenic logic and nomenclature, Sanger constituted women who used contraception as authors of racial betterment, thereby linking birth control to the racial maternalism of welfare feminists. … Sangerists resisted the eugenicists’ equation of poverty with ethnic inferiority and the extreme proposals of white supremacists who wished to increase fertility rates of white, middle-class women.“ (p.101)
McCann points out “… most lay people [in the 1910s] still held some version of belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Thus within Progressive ideology, the relationship between environment and heredity was quite elastic.” (p.102) “Mendelian genetics … by the late 1920s discredited most of the specific hereditarian principles underlying eugenic theory, the American eugenics movement increasingly ignored any influence that the environment might have on human traits, taking all socially important characteristics to be biologically determined. In Britain the eugenics movement was torn asunder by disagreements over Mendelian genetics.” (p.103) Sanger derived her eugenic ideas from the radical wing of the British eugenics movement, in particular from Havelock Ellis. (p.104) Engelman notes: “Neither Sanger nor the [birth control] movement as a whole defined fitness in racial terms, as did a number of leading eugenicists who assumed that race and ethnicity determined behavior and then manufactured or modified research results to prove it. [Americans] Charles Davenport … Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant relied on flawed intelligence tests and dubious ‘scientific’ observations and genetic analysis about specific racial groups to declare certain races, blacks and Jews especially, inferior.” (p.135)
Engelman says: “Sanger’s concerns centered on the economic status and health conditions of new immigrants and the country’s ability to absorb, educate, and employ them, rather than on immigrant’s particular ethnicity.” (p.135, see also Chesler p.195-6) McCann says Sanger “always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms.” (p.117) Sanger’s views were based on “an ‘economic ethic’ … of having only as many children as one can afford.” (p.13,16-21)
From this study I inserted the following paragraph in the “Eugenics” section: Sanger’s view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one’s progeny. Consequently, she rejected race and ethnicity as determining factors. Instead she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one’s economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race. Sanger’s view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport who took a racist view of inherited traits. She continually rejected their approach. Jason from nyc ( talk) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Joppa Chong, just for the record, the article does mention Sanger's speech to the Ku Klux Klan auxiliary in the section on the American Birth Control League. Motsebboh ( talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
C'mon guys get serious. Motsebboh gives us a comic book as a reference. Joppa Chong, your reference is an article addressing the Black genocide conspiracy theory and as such it should be covered in that article. Neither the Chesler nor Baker biographies considered the KKK meeting note worthy. Now, Motsebboh, you ask a good question about Sanger including the meeting in her autobiography. She also included her meeting with Gandhi which we don't mention. Let's compare. She meet with women of the KKK but not the male leadership or policy makers. With her meeting with Gandhi and Nehru, she is meeting India's future leaders. Both the Chesler and Baker bios have 5 pages. I say we delete the KKK and insert her meeting with Gandhi. Anyone? Jason from nyc ( talk) 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There's probably another Apologetic around. We haven't got a source calling an Angela Davis statement regarding Sanger's black people extermination remark erroneous, not to mention a consensus. So we cannot present it as a fact that Davis was wrong. – Joppa Chong ( talk) 05:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop me if you've been over this before, but shouldn't the article point out that she opposed abortion? She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics, and she described abortion as “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” "vicious," a “horror” in the same category as infanticide and child-abandonment, and "a disgrace to civilization." She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names." She said that the rights of unborn babies to protection were "no less imperative" than the rights of already-born children. She never advocated in any way for legalizing abortion. Planned Parenthood did not start doing abortions until after she had been dead for more than three years. Much of this is supported by this article from a RIGHT-WING, PRO-LIFE web site--which you would expect would OPPOSE MS in every possible way-- (RedState) http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/ I'm assuming there's a good reason the Wikipedia article doesn't already mention this, so I'm not gonna insert it yet, but I'd like to know what the good reason is. Thanks! HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I had reverted a lot of edits of User:Ihardlythinkso but he decided to reinstate them. To my opinion, it was really not an improvement of the article. But the editor is showing off a massive battleground mentality. Please, review my revert. The Banner talk 13:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems like you're both a little more hostile about this than the situation warrants: the typographical changes look to have been positive, and I agree with moving the sentence about her being widely recognized for birth control up. The block quotes do bother me, as they lend emphasis to things Sanger said or wrote that I'm not sure are deserving of that much emphasis, and may have been added by someone who is hostile to singers legacy in an attempt to make her look bad (which is a longstanding problem with the article). But the solution there is probably to trim or remove undue quotes, rather than formatting changes. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of IHTS's changes are either neutral or improvements, but " She is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement." is probably better at the end of the lede section since it is not a title or position she actually served, but more of a summary seen in historical retrospect. The lengthy quote about chronic maturbators could use both a trim and a bit of historical context, but I am no expert on that. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.", and 2) there was already some text qualifying notability in the 1st para, so it seemed/seems a bit redundant (and also a bit odd/out of place) to attempt to restate again at end of lede in last sentence. -- IHTS ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
conspiracy theory from single-purpose IP account |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Margaret Sanger received money from Nazi Germany in support of her liquidation of minority races from 1933 to December of 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:CDA6:12ED:AAB9:B0EE ( talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Read "Birth control and racial betterment" by Margaret Sanger. She quite clearly spells out the future of the black race and its liquidation by use of abortion. The Nazi connections to Margret Sanger were so close they changed the name of her killing group during WW2 to separate from those Nazi connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A47C:2934:B024:3D2B ( talk) 11:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Over 13 million black children have died from MArgret Sangers final solution for the black race. This happened in 1942 just after the Nazis declared war on the USA in December of 1941. As it would be treason to accept money from Hitlers Nazis they had to change the name to get more money from other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A47C:2934:B024:3D2B ( talk) 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC) |
Rare to protect a talkpage, even temporarily. Regrettably necessary in this case. Apologies to any legitimate IP editors who wanted to contribute here; please feel free to come back when the protection expires. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, nor are talk pages suitable places for publishing original research. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sanger advocated the mandatory sterilization of the insane and feebleminded." Although this does not diminish her legacy as the key force in the birth control movement, it raises questions much like those now being raised about our nation's slaveholding founders. How do we judge historical figures? How are their contributions placed in context? It is easy to see why there is some antipathy toward Sanger among people of color, considering that, given our nation's history, we are the people most frequently described as "unfit" and "feebleminded." Many African American women have been subject to nonconsensual forced sterilization. Some did not even know that they were sterilized until they tried, unsuccessfully, to have children. In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them. While one cannot blame Margaret Sanger for the actions of these physician, one can certainly see why Sanger's words are especially repugnant in a racial context. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been protective of Margaret Sanger's reputation and defensive of allegations that she was a racist. They correctly point out that many of the attacks on Sanger come from anti-choice activists who have an interest in distorting both Sanger's work and that of Planned Parenthood. While it is understandable that Planned Parenthood would be protective of their founder's reputation, it cannot ignore the fact that Sanger edited the Birth Control review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did. Like Many Modern Feminists, Sanger Ignored Race and Class Would the NAACP's house organ, Crisis Magazine, print articles by members of the Ku Klux Klan? Would Planned Parenthood publish articles penned by fetal protectionist South Carolina republican Lindsey Graham? The articled published in the Birth Control Review showed Sanger's empathy with some eugenicist views. Margaret Sanger worked closely with W. E. B. DuBois on her "Negro Project," an effort to expose Southern black women to birth control. Mary McLeod Bethune and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. were also involved in the effort. Much later, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted an award from Planned Parenthood and complimented the organization's efforts. It is entirely possible that Sanger Ôs views evolved over time. Certainly, by the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States. This evolution, however commendable, does not eradicate the impact of her earlier statements. What, then, is Sanger's legacy? The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has grown to an organization with 129 affiliates. It operates 875 health centers and serves about 5 million women each year. Planned Parenthood has been a leader in the fight for women's right to choose and in providing access to affordable reproductive health care for a cross-section of women. Planned Parenthood has not supported forced sterilization or restricted immigration and has gently rejected the most extreme of Sanger's views. In many ways, Sanger is no different from contemporary feminists who, after making the customary acknowledgement of issues dealing with race and class, return to analysis that focuses exclusively on gender. These are the feminists who feel that women should come together around "women's issues" and battle out our differences later. In failing to acknowledge differences and the differential impact of a set of policies, these feminists make it difficult for women to come together. Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic. That's reason enough to suggest that her leadership was flawed and her legacy crippled by her insensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.192.209 ( talk) 20:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
How can you suppress all the factual negative input your "site" has received???? Revisionist history - just like Papa Joe Stalin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.192.209 ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
When Sanger died in sept of 1966 the klu klux klan declared a national day of morning. Sanger efforts to kill off the black race was way more effectivethan anything than the KKK ever did. The KKK flower arrangement was the biggest at her funeral by far.
Actually Margret Sanger was a 40 year member of the KKK from her May of 1926 speech to the Woman's branch of the KKK till September 1966 at her death. She received life membership for giving the speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:BD1A:25C7:F0AE:8DEE ( talk) 02:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I should be I have a PHD in history and did my doctoral thesis on Margaret Sanger and her Nazi and KKK connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:3517:8C7A:6809:6555 ( talk) 13:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is odd. I came here to find some info about her children, but, well, nothing but the sound of crickets. (Silence.) Did I miss it? There is good stuff at https://books.google.com/books?id=vbQa8tnhr1EC&pg=PA7#v=snippet&q=children&f=false . Why isn't it being used? Sorry, I know that I am allowed to edit this article, but I am awfully busy with some other writing, so I cede the responsibility to somebody else interested in making this a better article. Yours in Wikdome, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Any thoughts on explicitly mentioning "Women of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America"? The reason why I am requesting this is that my book is referenced several times throughout the article but has no mention under the "Legacy" section. EllenChesler ( talk) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Suggested edit for last line of this section:
"In spite of such controversies, Sanger continues to be regarded by historians and reproductive rights activists as a force in the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement."
Is this acceptable or do you want a footnote to specific people? Hmprescott ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign...." The MSPP's interpretation of the controversial Sanger quote is widely accepted among historians and probably correct; however, the cited newsletters reveal that the MSPP is a pro-choice organization with an ideological investment in defending Sanger's legacy. For example, the first citation, "The Demonization of Margaret Sanger" repeatedly refers to anti-abortion organizations as "anti-choice groups," a pejorative epithet rejected by anti-abortion advocates. It also acknowledges that Sanger's grandson was both the president of Planned Parenthood of NYC and a member of the MSPP's advisory board at the time the newsletter was written. I suggest that the innocent explanation for Sanger's "exterminate" quote should remain, but a more neutral source should be used: e.g., http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/ or http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/. (I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate help with appropriate sourcing.)
In addition, the second half of the sentence, "conspiracy theorists have fraudulently attempted to exploit the quotation 'as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will'," is tendentious, and I suggest that it be deleted or carefully reworked. The source of the quote in this passage is again the MFPP. On the other hand, both Time (linked above) and the Washington Post describe the controversial Sanger sentence as "inartfully written." Sanger's "exterminate the Negro" quote is certainly capable of honest misinterpretation as well as "fraudulent exploitation." Omitting the former explanation for the misuse of Sanger's words while using the language of an ideologically slanted reference to assert the latter smacks of bias. 173.73.58.75 ( talk) 03:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree about her support of African American Civil Rights. The problem is with the discussion of her one quote, "We don’t want the 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," and the biased source for that discussion. It seems to me that present-day readers ignorant of historical context could and do misconstrue this particular quote in good faith. Her association with racist members of the contemporary eugenics movement also seems to have contributed to the fairly widespread misapprehension that Sanger herself was racist. If reliable, non-partisan sources exist for the claim that the racist interpretation of Sanger's quote was put forth by conspiracy theorists, these sources should be cited instead of MSPP, and the group that originally promulgated the conspiracy theory should be named, if possible. Claiming that the political use of this misinterpretation is strictly a right-wing phenomenon is also inaccurate, as
Angela Davis was also misled by Sanger's statement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.73.58.75 (
talk)
11:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Re why people would be swayed - nearly everyone suffers from confirmation bias. I'll put my hand up: I'd never read enough about Sanger's biography to know of her Civil Rights connections, but as a pro-lifer, I never before questioned the popular (in my circles) sound byte that Sanger was particularly interested in suppressing black births. When I came across an article that seemed to contradict that assumption, I came to Wikipedia to get the facts. I'm extremely grateful to have been corrected, but I'm not grateful that I had to check multiple references to become convinced because Wikipedia's sole source for its rebuttal of my erroneous beliefs was full of language insulting people like me and questioning our motives. That is why I suggested the changes above. An encyclopedia can best serve the truth (and in this case defend Sanger's legacy from ignorance like mine!) if its readers feel assured that it is not written to serve a political agenda.
Once again, the MSPP references in this paragraph should be replaced, not just supplemented, by unbiased ones, and the reference to "fraud" and "conspiracy" should be deleted or supported by better sources. MSPP seems like an essentially reliable source of scholarship on Sanger's life and work, but it cannot be trusted as a source on pro-life interpretations of Sanger for the same reason that a group that refers to pro-choice people as "anti-life" cannot be trusted as a source on pro-choice advocates' motives and ideas - even if the rest of its scholarship is sound.
I don't want to derail this topic's focus on these suggested edits, but if you regard Sanger's association with the eugenics movement as "supposed and superficial," you may be suffering from some confirmation bias of your own, MarkB. The "Eugenics" section of this article makes interesting reading. 67.108.126.82 ( talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I’m familiar with the intellectual history of eugenics, 67; in the future, kindly restrict your commentary to proposed edits, not editors. The Wikipedia article already includes many sources that confirm Sanger’s deep and abiding involvement with the civil rights movement, but you are free to add additional sources if you like; they are not difficult to find. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This article could not be any more biased than it already is. Thankfully, the Polish wikipedia entry about Margaret Sanger is more reliable. May I aks where is the quotation about the "human weed"? Even if it appeared, am I right to suppose that someone will make a convoluted attempt to rationalise this phrasing and attest--with the aid of equally partisan MSPP--that this sort of narration was prevalent at the time and she was, despite all evidence, inculpable? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
176.221.121.210 (
talk)
15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding work with the African American Community, would including material on Martin Luther King, Jr's receipt of the Margaret Sanger Award be appropriate here? http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/family-planning-special-and-urgent-concern Hmprescott ( talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Was her husband William Sanger Jewish ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C40:14C:7D5C:5D40:2CF:132 ( talk) 20:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Sanger was a well known atheist. This is not even mentioned. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 01:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This statement is in the lede: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion, although Planned Parenthood did not begin providing abortions until 1970, after Sanger had already died.
As no legal abortions could be done prior to Roe V Wade, this statement is a red herring and seeks to discredit the accusers by throwing up a false statement.
A more accurate statement pulled from the information within the current text which defines Sanger's espoused anti-abortion philosophy, would be something like: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. However, Sanger clearly drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was staunch anti-abortionist through the bulk of her career."
Opinions? Ckruschke ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke
Hi Gerntrash. I've reverted your removal of the following
which you suggested was unsupported by the source, and I wanted to explain why. The source says:
In respectable circles, illegal abortion was universally condemned as primitive, dangerous, and disreputable, and this was clearly the reason why Margaret reversed the endorsement of the procedure she had made in her Woman Rebel days.(p271)
I think this is fairly clear support for the statement in our article. Cheers, Basie ( talk) 03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Woman's experiences must be many and varied, but above all she must assume control over her own body that she alone shall decide her needs and if motherhood is among them--let her accept it, but if not--then let her reject it at any cost.[13]
During fourteen years experience as a trained nurse, I found that a great percentage of women's diseases were due to ignorance of the means to prevent conception. I found that quackery was thriving on this ignorance, and that thousands of abortions were being performed each year-- principally upon the women of the working class. Since the laws deter reliable and expert surgeons from performing abortions, working women have always been thrown into the hands of the incompetent, with fatal results. The deaths from abortions mount very high.
Many doctors also feared, or perhaps themselves shared, the public's still common confusion between contraception and abortion. Health professionals, especially in cities like New York, were increasingly concerned about their inability to reduce the country's appallingly high rates of maternal mortality, and they blamed the problem in part on the numbers of women dying from complications of illegal or self-induced abortion. In respectable circles, illegal abortion was universally condemned as primitive, dangerous, and disreputable, and this was clearly the reason why Margaret reversed the endorsement of the procedure she had made in her Woman Rebel days.Chesler, Ellen. Woman of valor. p. 271.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).