Mary Wollestonecraft famously declared: “I do not wish [women] to have power over men; but over themselves.” It is hard to imagine anything more fundamental to a woman’s agency than the ability to control her own fertility, and modern technology can grant us just this kind of control.
Great piece, I didn't realize how much of the criticism of Sanger came from the right! When I had a set of pictures of folks throughout history I was a fan of in my office cube, the only one I ever took flak for was Sanger, on account of something to do with eugenics.
It's a total psyop! Eugenics is such a taboo on the left that invoking it is very effective. She absolutely was involved in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century, in part because it was very popular and she thought it a good vessel for popularizing her cause. Her abiding motivation was the reduction of suffering and emancipation of the working classes.
“Of course people who want to can abstain from using contraception, have sex only within a monogamous marriage, or rule out abortion as an option for themselves. But to universalise these values as a prescription for women’s best interests relies on willful misrepresentation of the facts. “
They’re expressing their opinion on the matter as you express yours. Reading your piece just gives off the impression that you’re frustrated that their argumentation of their position is carrying the day more and more versus the position you hold.
“This should be obvious, but access to contraception is good for women. Access to safe and legal abortion is good for women. The sexual revolution has been, on net, good for women.”
If it isn’t obvious (when it should be as you state), either the case hasn’t been made well or people just don’t agree with it. What’s obvious and good to me might not be so to you. That’s standard and it aligns with your previous comment about not universalising values across whole swaths of people.
And speaking of willful misrepresentation (as you characterised the reactionary feminist views) not once did you touch on that conservatives interest in curtailing, controlling or abolishing abortion is largely based on the fact that (in their view) it involves another person who’s interests are not being considered or protected (embryo). Writing a whole piece and only covering the interests of the woman to not have to give birth and neglecting the terminated fetus, is…well dishonest. Similar with Christians. Their purpose isn’t to control women but their concern is with the unborn. Seems like strawmanning at worst and incomplete discussion of the subject at best.
“Freedom from unwanted motherhood is absolutely fundamental to women’s emancipation.”
Yes, but it’s not like pregnancy is a condition that just appears and women need “freedom from it”. Women have agency and it’s patronising to suggest they need freedom in this instance.
Also don’t forget your earlier comment ….
“Of course people who want to can abstain from using contraception, have sex only within a monogamous marriage, or rule out abortion as an option for themselves.”
So are women who only have sex within marriage and rule out abortion not worthy of emancipation? Seems like a bizarre position.
I enjoyed reading your piece but I don’t think you pushed your view forward much given the points I highlighted above and more that I’m opting not to.
Great piece, I didn't realize how much of the criticism of Sanger came from the right! When I had a set of pictures of folks throughout history I was a fan of in my office cube, the only one I ever took flak for was Sanger, on account of something to do with eugenics.
It's a total psyop! Eugenics is such a taboo on the left that invoking it is very effective. She absolutely was involved in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century, in part because it was very popular and she thought it a good vessel for popularizing her cause. Her abiding motivation was the reduction of suffering and emancipation of the working classes.
“Of course people who want to can abstain from using contraception, have sex only within a monogamous marriage, or rule out abortion as an option for themselves. But to universalise these values as a prescription for women’s best interests relies on willful misrepresentation of the facts. “
They’re expressing their opinion on the matter as you express yours. Reading your piece just gives off the impression that you’re frustrated that their argumentation of their position is carrying the day more and more versus the position you hold.
“This should be obvious, but access to contraception is good for women. Access to safe and legal abortion is good for women. The sexual revolution has been, on net, good for women.”
If it isn’t obvious (when it should be as you state), either the case hasn’t been made well or people just don’t agree with it. What’s obvious and good to me might not be so to you. That’s standard and it aligns with your previous comment about not universalising values across whole swaths of people.
And speaking of willful misrepresentation (as you characterised the reactionary feminist views) not once did you touch on that conservatives interest in curtailing, controlling or abolishing abortion is largely based on the fact that (in their view) it involves another person who’s interests are not being considered or protected (embryo). Writing a whole piece and only covering the interests of the woman to not have to give birth and neglecting the terminated fetus, is…well dishonest. Similar with Christians. Their purpose isn’t to control women but their concern is with the unborn. Seems like strawmanning at worst and incomplete discussion of the subject at best.
“Freedom from unwanted motherhood is absolutely fundamental to women’s emancipation.”
Yes, but it’s not like pregnancy is a condition that just appears and women need “freedom from it”. Women have agency and it’s patronising to suggest they need freedom in this instance.
Also don’t forget your earlier comment ….
“Of course people who want to can abstain from using contraception, have sex only within a monogamous marriage, or rule out abortion as an option for themselves.”
So are women who only have sex within marriage and rule out abortion not worthy of emancipation? Seems like a bizarre position.
I enjoyed reading your piece but I don’t think you pushed your view forward much given the points I highlighted above and more that I’m opting not to.