Talk:Margaret Sanger

Protected edit request on 9 September 2015

In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.

should be changed to

Sanger approved of the widely accepted practice of forced sterilization of "severely retarded people."

The reasons are manyfold. (1) The word “advocated” suggests advancing a policy not already in place. For example, it would be odd to say that in the 2012 presidential election both candidates advocated a central bank. “Advocated” should be changed to "approved of." (2) The phrase “undeniably feeble-minded” is antiquated language that leaves the idea up to our reader’s imagination. The Valenza reference (which we cite) uses “severely retarded people” to make clear what she’s referring to.[1]

To justify the notion of it being a “widely accepted practice” and not one originating with Sanger, I refer to the Chesler biography, page 215. Chesler explains: "What is more, nearly universal agreement was reached during the 1920s on the propriety of passing compulsory sterilization statutes to govern the behavior of individuals carrying deficiencies believed to be inherited, such as mental retardation, insanity, or uncontrollable epilepsy. This movement reached its zenith with the enactment of such laws in thirty states."[2]

Please add the reference "Chesler 1992, pp. 215-217" and keep the Valenza reference. You might want to add a link to the Velenza abstract. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all changes to the article with other editors before using {{editprotected}}. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Comments please, everyone! Anyone? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, support, although the phrasing seems awkward to me - how about, "approved of the forced sterilization of 'severely retarded people,' which was a widely accepted practice at the time." ? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support MarkBernstein (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not use a direct quote from Sanger? "We prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded," Pivot of Civilization, pp. 101-102. MFNickster (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is almost always better to use a scholarly secondary source than a primary source for something like this. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree, but in this case it seems pointless to search for sources to settle whether she "supported," "advocated" or "approved of" such a policy when she used the word "prefer." If we're talking about Pivot in particular, secondary sources will only add ambiguity. MFNickster (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We could talk about "Pivot" in the article. If the aim is to discuss her views of eugenics in Pivot, then the above quote is the wrong one. The above quote is from Chapter IV. Chapter VIII addresses eugenics and its limits. She writes “we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of 'fit' and 'unfit.' Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.” But beyond this she finds the idea of government determination of fitness abhorrent. “The trouble with any effort of trying to divide humanity into the 'fit' and the 'unfit,' is that we do not want, as H. G. Wells recently pointed out, to breed for uniformity but for variety.” She continues with the perils of deciding who is “abnormal—men like Rousseau, Dostoevsky, Chopin, Poe, Schumann, Nietzsche, Comte, Guy de Maupassant,—and how many others?” … “It only emphasizes the dangers of external standards of 'fit' and 'unfit.' ... These limitations are more strikingly shown in the types of so-called 'eugenic' legislation passed or proposed by certain enthusiasts. ... As for the sterilization of habitual criminals, not merely must we know more of heredity and genetics in general, but also acquire more certainty of the justice of our laws and the honesty of their administration before we can make rulings of fitness or unfitness merely upon the basis of a respect for law.”

The case of the severely mentally retarded is the exception to the rule, the one case that she believes is obvious to everyone. The rule is that the state can’t be trusted to define “fit” and “unfit.” If our aim is to summarize her views in Pivot, it would not be fair to pick the “exception” rather than the “rule.” It’s interesting that we take that "Pivot" quote out of Valenza’s article when his abstract says “In part of her most important work, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger's dissent from eugenics was made clear. By examining extracts from her books, the author refutes the notion that Sanger was a eugenicist.” There's a danger if we try to decide which quote in Pivot best expresses her views. Deferring the secondary sources is preferable. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It was "widely accepted" in certain circles. It was by no means universally accepted. 161.202.72.171 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

those "certain circles" we're the consensus of respectable scientific, medical, and political opinion at the time, as supported by the consensus of our reliable sources, wHose sock are you, IP? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Sanger's use of the phrase "undeniably feeble-minded" is not meant to distinguish between the types and severity of feeble-mindedness, but to distinguish between the feeble-minded and those who would be erroneously placed in that category due to social, environmental, class and racial biases. Changing the text to read "severely mentally retarded" would obfuscate the true meaning of her words. She makes it quite clear earlier in "Pivot" that she believes that 10% of the population can correctly be classified as feeble-minded using advanced "scientific" methods like the Binet I.Q. test, including the "border-line" cases who may appear to be normal, and those who have evaded discovery by the state by leading quiet lives.

It is also worth noting that the sentence preceding the sentence under discussion uses quotes around the phrase "profoundly retarded," but neither of the footnoted sources use that phrase. This is also understandable, since the assertion is that Sanger only advocated segregation/sterilization for the severely afflicted is unequivocally incorrect. Her estimate in "Peace Plan" was 15 or 20 million people would be subject to her policy.

The phrase "severely mentally retarded" comes from a publication funded by an organization named after a former president of planned parenthood. While I do not dispute it is a "reliable source," it should be kept in mind that is a biased source, and it that case, it would be best to let the quote from the primary source stand without interpretation.

If we cherry pick the primary source and ignore the secondary source's interpretation we are doing original research. Even if you don't agree with my replacement statement, the current sentence should be removed as it doesn't properly reflect the sources, which you admit. Jason from nyc (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Learnt norton (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the phrasing is acceptable as it is. I don't think her advocacy is really in dispute, since publishing your approval of a policy is certainly advocacy. Also, the phrase "undeniably feeble-minded" is historically true to the source, though it makes sense to footnote it to clarify its meaning in the context of the times. MFNickster (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Previously you correctly pointed out that our article is talking about her views in "Pivot" and I'm grateful you did. The source we cite says "In part of her most important work, 'Pivot of Civilization,' Sanger's dissent from eugenics was made clear." [3] Do you think we properly reflect the source with this quote? Jason from nyc (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Malthusianism

I expanded the one sentence on neo-Malthusianism to explain her views and show her influence on that movement (sorry for typo in edit summary). Her biographies note the influence of this movement on her from 1914 on. There is a danger that younger readers won't understand the concept and context but I included links to our articles on Malthusianism and over-population. The latter was still a major concern in the late 60s and early 70s. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Her sexual behavior and philosophy

As stated here, she favored the "liberation" of women's sex lives. But that term is meaningless. A book review last week on NPR of a book on "the Pill" claimed she was in favor of extra-martial sex, and had many sexual partners. This article HIDES the fact in the statement that she "became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists...". If in fact "became involved with" means "had sex with", the euphemism is really inappropriate and misleading here. She also encouraged the same behavior in her husband, and both are apparently well established facts. This is noteworthy, both for her times and in our current cultural context.72.172.10.197 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The sex lives of prominent people in the early 20th century are often very hard to recover because our evidence for them is very thin. To say that Sanger’s philosophy is "meaningless", as you do above, may make contemporary right-wing extremists feel better but it has no chance to become part of the encyclopedia and is a borderline policy violation. The article hides nothing; by when Sanger became involved with intellectuals, artists, and social activists she doubtless had tea or coffee with them, met them for drinks, had them over for dinner, joined them at the theater or the ballpark. She might have gone to bed with some of them, or she might not; we only know what people wrote, and even then it can be difficult to achieve certainty. If you're interested in a history of sexuality in among the Greenwich Village elite of the early 20th century, you could perhaps write a page on the subject. For Sanger alone, however, you're going to have a hard time finding sources, and even then according them due weight will reduce their presence here to a sliver. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Du Bois

In the Race section, a pair of IPs have been making efforts to disparage WEB Du Bois, reducing him from co-founder of the NAACP (which he was) to merely it's magazine editor (which he was also). Since these IP editors were unsatisfied with the readily-available references available on D Bois's Wikipedia page, I have added refs from the national monument, from Martin Luther King’s eulogy, and from the NAACP. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your most recent edit introduced more detail about Du Bois than is appropriate for an article about Sanger. I can't speak for other editors but my revert was based on the absence of citation. A citation to support the "co-founder" claim is all that's needed. I would not contest such an edit. 107.150.94.4 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You contested the co-founder claim; I provided a link to a Wikipedia page that provided abundant evidence -- including that specific claim in the lede. I provided abundant documentation, and clarified the importance of Du Bois. Whether the additions are an appropriate level of detail is a discussion we can have at some future time, once the point is established. Du Bois’ prominent, indeed indispensable, role in the history of the era is very well attested. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Additional Sources

107.150.94.4 is deleting additional sources of info. Sources that they specifically requested. This logic is extremely dubious, not to mention unhelpful and destructive to the article itself. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Life member #214 of Women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan or KKK.

In 1926 Margaret Sanger was given life membership number 214 in the Women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in payment for her speech to the ladies auxiliary.She was a member in good standing until her death on September 6, 1966 a period of 40 years.