Margaret Sanger Being An Idiot During World War II

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

 

Hattip to Instapundit.  A salute to Dalrock for coming up with another example of the font of stupidity that was Margaret Sanger:

In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling.  Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:

she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.

The date of the program was July 19, 1944.  This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout.  World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there.  Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted).  

Go here to read the rest.  “Lucky” men, enjoying the “fun” of World War II.

More to explorer

PopeWatch: Vigano

Archbishop Carlo Vigano has some questions about the Vatican Dog and Pony Sex Abuse Summit:   I am praying intensely for the

56 Comments

  1. Women now days are self-centered and I will not disrespect the men on this video by saying something horrible about women! My father was in Korea and was a firefighter putting his life on the line to save people and my mother’s response was ” THE BEST THING IN MY LIFE WAS YOUR FATHER!” Perhaps many women today could learn a thing or to from her! MAY THESE MEN REST IN PEACE AND THANK YOU ALL EVERYONE OF YOU ALL FOR YOUR SACRIFICE!

  2. Sacrifice!

    Agape love. This is the bottom line.
    A mother trying to hang on without the help of the father. Sacrifice. The father risking his life for neighbors. Sacrifice.
    This is the highest form of love, yet look at the darkness of M. Sanger. To exclude the truth of sacrifice and replace it with envy was, is the foundation of the new woman. The woman envious. The license to kill instead of love. The opposite of agape.
    The foundation of the deaths of over 58 million unborn lives. Sanger and those who treasure her beliefs are from an enemy camp. An enemy of humanity.

  3. Phillip, well said. However, I wonder if beyond these snippets of understanding we glimpse between the young mother and her husband and leaving out Margaret Sanger for a moment, perhaps what’s missing for the young mother is her husband not relating to her hardships and understanding her sacrifice as well. Husbands are called to understand their wives and possibly when this is absent, he has fueled her feelings of unease with the situation, herself, him. I loathe what Margaret S. fostered in this world, fueled from her own envy, but maybe for this husband and wife, their are more issues at play.

  4. Cindee.

    Thank you for your observations.
    I did make a blanket statement which I did not mean to encompass all. There are myriads of circumstances, however the sower of the seed, M. Sanger, is the weed planting witch infusing a toxin that has been heralded as modern progressive elixir for disgruntled women.

    I am sympathetic to womens hardships, but not at the expense of anothers life.

    Doris Day, (not the actor) is an example of heroic virtue in the face of extreme hardship.

  5. MS likely, in part or in toto, fabricated the encounter.
    .

    Yes, I’m no fan of feminism. My uncle John (RIP) was married when he went overseas with the “Big Red One.” He fought with them from North Africa to Germany. He survived the D-Day landing. That woman left him for another man while he was overseas. And, while he was away having fun, his (my great-grandmother) mother suffered a massive stroke and he could never speak with her again.
    .

    No man can understand or appreciate the “hardship” and “sacrifice” that motherhood involves. Dealing with young children makes months of infantry/combat training, endless cold/wet, scorching/arid fatigues, cramped-ship-borne travel in U-boat infested seas, and intense hours/minutes of sudden death or dismemberment seem like fun.

  6. Perhaps, Cindee, but we don’t know that the woman’s husband didn’t express such sympathy. Perhaps he didn’t, perhaps he did but not enough, and perhaps he did.
    It’s also possible that the woman was being sarcastic in her use of the word ‘fun’ – meaning her view was closer to Don McClarey’s – and the sarcasm went right over Sanger’s head (“hmmm, lemme see, what’s more likely, that this woman’s comment fits my prejudices concerning male-female roles, or could it possibly be a critique of a lack of enough gravity while people suffer – naw, it couldn’t be the later!” BTW, the husband’s ‘lightness’ may have been a stress mechanism and was misunderstood as such.
    Thinking about it, I’m not sure I would take Sanger’s account at face value.

  7. Mr. Shaw, I missed your “MS likely, in part or in toto, fabricated the encounter” comment when I wrote mine. Sorry. Funny we came to the same conclusion

  8. T. Shaw-

    One more to add to your list.
    PTSD. My uncle served under Four Star Gen. Patton as a tank driver. He survived the Buldge, however he was changed forever. He struggled with civilian life. Long haul trucking was his therapy. Being on the road away from others help keep him sane.

    Two year olds are challenging, Omaha beach complete hell on earth.

  9. From “A Heart on Fire” by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.:
    .
    “Without the restraints of a moral consensus animated and defended by a living religious community, the freedom of the individual easily becomes a license for selfishness.”
    .
    Satan whispers in our ears the lovely song of self-serving delight. We are told that we’re not hurting anybody, that it’s just for some enjoyment, and after all, if God loves us, doesn’t He want us to be happy?
    .
    Sanger, and all Progressives alike, have drunk deep from this well. They must exclude the existence of God and the higher callings that provide honest happiness – the ones that feed our souls and work for the glory of He who made us – in order to perpetuate the lie given them by the Father of Lies.

  10. “MS likely, in part or in toto, fabricated the encounter.”

    It has been my experience that any time (no exceptions) there is/are a supposed fact/facts being used to push/support a liberal agenda–that the “fact/facts” is/are a lie/lies. Case in point: The head of Planned Parenthood testifying that partial birth abortion is rare in this country in order to provide cover for Bill Clinton to veto a federal partial birth abortion ban. It was made public after the fact of the veto that one NJ abortion clinic had killed 1200 babies in the year previous to the veto (yes, just one clinic & just one year.) It also turned out that the head of PP knew he was lying to Congress at the time he was stating the falsehoods. What a shock! *sarcasm*

  11. Sorry! Re: my previous post: the NJ abortion clinic killed those 1200 babies in one year by using the partial birth abortion method–the very method that was being proclaimed to be “rare” & ” safe.”

  12. “Satan whispers in our ears the lovely song of self-serving delight. We are told that we’re not hurting anybody, that it’s just for some enjoyment, and after all, if God loves us, doesn’t He want us to be happy?”

    I WISH most women thought that what they were doing was OK with God. In the last year, I have had a coworker tell me point blank that she KNOWS abortion is wrong & simply does not care–that she is going to do it anyway. One can work with those who do not understand the difference between right & wrong. May God have mercy on those who say, “I know this is murder in God’s eyes and am absolutely determined to commit murder anyway.”

  13. Very well stated Phillip. I would only add her current supporters seem to use the same motiff e.g., fabricate personal stories of personal knowledge they know will never be authenticated as to veracity that convey a shallow and selfish perspective focused on the me and my. The my of course referring to their bodies in support of their sacrament of abortion, patently a lie most scientifically proven such that gymnastic legalisms as to “personhood” must be employed.

  14. If we can leave Margaret Sanger out of it for a moment and just focus on what this anonymous housewife reportedly said, it is quite plausible. I would think that her husband, in writing letters home, would probably leave out most of the gory details, not wanting to burden her or make her worry about his safety, and would try to focus on the positive. Plus, his letters were almost certainly censored by the military and any details that could reveal where he was fighting or the number or type of casualties his unit was suffering, or inflicting on the enemy, would have to be left out. So all that he COULD talk about, perhaps, would be stuff that would make it sound as if he were on a great adventure of some kind, and even if she knew intellectually that his job was not all “fun” she probably couldn’t help but feel a bit envious. Bear in mind, also, that gasoline rationing and car ownership not being as prevalent at that time probably meant she didn’t get out of her house or neighborhood very often. Also, we are not told why she was on the train or where she was going. It may not have been a “pleasure” trip; perhaps she was on her way to visit an ill or distressed or difficult relative.

    About 20 years ago I met a very exemplary Catholic wife, whose husband was in the military over in, I believe, Bosnia, who admitted to similar feelings of jealousy toward him at times — “you get to see the world and I’m stuck at home wiping the kids’ noses all day!” This woman was NOT naive or spoiled, she knew her husband’s job was dangerous, but she admitted to feeling that way at times.

    All that said, the solution to the bored/trapped housewife’s problem was not for her to divorce her husband or abort her children, but simply for someone to give her an occasional break by offering to babysit or take her kids to the park, etc. while she did something else. If her husband were not willing to do it, a friend, relative or neighbor could have.

  15. Thank you Mr. McClarey for the kind words and the link.

    @Elaine Krewer

    …even if she knew intellectually that his job was not all “fun” she probably couldn’t help but feel a bit envious.

    About 20 years ago I met a very exemplary Catholic wife, whose husband was in the military over in, I believe, Bosnia, who admitted to similar feelings of jealousy toward him at times — “you get to see the world and I’m stuck at home wiping the kids’ noses all day!” This woman was NOT naive or spoiled, she knew her husband’s job was dangerous, but she admitted to feeling that way at times.

    All that said, the solution to the bored/trapped housewife’s problem was not for her to divorce her husband or abort her children, but simply for someone to give her an occasional break by offering to babysit or take her kids to the park, etc. while she did something else. If her husband were not willing to do it, a friend, relative or neighbor could have.

    The problem we have today is that we can’t spot the sin of feminist rebellion when it is right in front of us. No matter how egregious the example, it will be rationalized away. To be honest, we have probably always found this difficult, even in Sanger’s time and before.

    Above you have described two wives sinning in envy of their husbands, a characteristic form of sin we are advised of in Genesis. In the first case you describe it as normal, and in the second case you describe is as the model of an exemplary Catholic wife.

    There is no such thing as sin in our modern world when it comes to wives, only the need for more help with childcare. Sanger would be proud.

  16. I never said these women were right or justified in how they felt, only that I tended to believe the woman-on-the-train story COULD have actually happened, in contrast to those who suggested that Sanger probably just made it up to advance her point. The second woman I described as an “exemplary Catholic” not because her OCCASIONAL twinges of jealousy were worthy of emulation, but because she was a committed, orthodox Catholic, very involved in her parish and in the pro-life movement, and also homeschooled her older children. In other words, she was one of the last people on earth I would have suspected of being guilty of the “sin of feminist rebellion”.

  17. @Elaine Krewer

    I never said these women were right or justified in how they felt, only that I tended to believe the woman-on-the-train story COULD have actually happened, in contrast to those who suggested that Sanger probably just made it up to advance her point. The second woman I described as an “exemplary Catholic” not because her OCCASIONAL twinges of jealousy were worthy of emulation, but because she was a committed, orthodox Catholic, very involved in her parish and in the pro-life movement, and also homeschooled her older children. In other words, she was one of the last people on earth I would have suspected of being guilty of the “sin of feminist rebellion”.

    If you spotted the feminist rebellion, why the need to invent a whole series of justifications for the woman on the train in rebellion? Acknowledging it as a standard issue and very common sin would suffice in explaining that it could have happened. Why invent a series of details to paint Sanger’s housewife in a more favorable light? And why keep Sanger out of it, since either way Sanger is telling this story to sell her favorite sin, the sin of feminist rebellion? Sanger didn’t enjoy killing babies, abortion was merely a means to the end of this favorite sin of hers. She even published a monthly named after her favorite sin: “The Women Rebel”.

    Moreover, why not ever acknowledge the sin, and why did you propose as the solution to said sin not repentance, but the feminist solution of the husband taking over more of the childcare? No doubt Sanger would be delighted with your proposal, but therein lies the problem.

  18. And why keep Sanger out of it, since either way Sanger is telling this story to sell her favorite sin, the sin of feminist rebellion? Sanger didn’t enjoy killing babies, abortion was merely a means to the end of this favorite sin of hers. She even published a monthly named after her favorite sin: “The Women Rebel”.

    Sanger was an advocate of eugenics. Not everything is properly jammed into the procrustian bed of your thinking.

  19. Art,

    My nearly 700-page Webster’s NewWorld Thesuarus does not include the word “procrustean.” I found it in a google search.

    I’m impressed.

  20. @Art Deco

    Sanger was an advocate of eugenics. Not everything is properly jammed into the procrustian bed of your thinking.

    I don’t see the relevance of Sanger’s eugenics or your ad hominem. Are you accusing me of being unwavering in my faith? And how does this nulify the valid questions I asked?

    Why not name the sin? Why go to such great lengths to describe the sin as reasonable and understandable? Why propose a feminist solution (the husband takes over more child care) as the solution to the sin of feminist rebellion, instead of proposing repentance?

    Call me more names if you wish, but it won’t matter tho those who read carefully.

  21. “why did you propose as the solution to said sin not repentance, but the feminist solution of the husband taking over more of the childcare? No doubt Sanger would be delighted with your proposal, but therein lies the problem.”

    So giving a stay at home mom an occasional break from taking care of her kids is sinful in your book? If she’s going bananas cooped up at home, she should just “repent” of her “rebellion” and push all thoughts of having even a couple of hours to herself out of her mind? That way of thinking, sorry to say, feeds right into Sanger’s argument — that divorce, contraception and abortion are the ONLY alternative to a life of unrelieved drudgery and isolation for women.

    Call it a “feminist solution” but I would think that if asking one’s husband or a friend or relative to watch the kids so you can get an occasional afternoon or evening out keeps you from having a nervous breakdown, developing an addiction, or taking out your frustrations on your kids via verbal or physical abuse, I see nothing wrong with that. If Sanger “would have approved” of this idea, well, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a good idea doesn’t become evil just because an evil person happens to approve of it. If that were the case, we should denounce interstate highways and Volkswagens as evil because they were Hitler’s ideas.

  22. Sometimes women, especially those engaged in raising several small children, are just exhausted and need a change. I would suggest that desiring a different experience for a brief period (including wishing that one could change places with one’s husband) is not always a sin….absent a malignant intent.
    .
    In my view, Margaret Sanger is in a different category from the average exhausted housewife. Sanger actively and intentionally rebelled against the Will of God by seeking to elevate (wo)men to the status of gods and by dishonoring and rejecting the inherent dignity due every human being who is made in Imago Dei.
    .
    Sanger’s actions suggest an intentional promotion of Division between:

    (i) men and women by advancing a false form of women’s liberation divorced from Revelation and Natural Law;

    .
    (ii) blacks and whites by advancing the malicious lie of utopian racial perfection (eugenics);
    .
    (iii) by impeding new life and the destruction of the Family through contraception (placing physical and hormonal barriers between a woman’s ovum and her husband’s sperm); and when contraception failed,
    .
    (iv) by promoting abortion (the intentional destruction of new life).
    .
    For those Sanger categorized as “less than” and unworthy (in her opinion) of propagation, sterilization was the final solution.
    .
    Catholicism teaches us that “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6:12
    .
    I suggest that Margaret Sanger’s actions intentionally advanced the ends of “the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. For this reason, her actions were contrary to God’s plan and complicit with evil. Her reasons for dishonoring God and the dignity due His children are best known to herself. As one who was raised Catholic, she should have known better. May God have mercy on her soul.
    .
    Thus, I’m not convinced that all exhausted women who need a short term change of experience are in rebellion or are complicit with the dark forces of this world.
    .
    An examination of one’s Intent matters when determining whether sin is present and God is the ultimate judge.

  23. “Why propose a feminist solution (the husband takes over more child care) as the solution to the sin of feminist rebellion, instead of proposing repentance?”

    Repentance does not change diapers. It is a job that somebody has to do and a child’s father is as capable of it as its mother, who may be beyond exhaustion and in a desperate need of reprieve.

    Anyway, how’s husband taking over more child care a “feminist” solution? Since time immemorial fathers cared for their offspring on an equal footing with mothers, especially among the working poor world over.

    The idea that husband taking on more child care duties is “feminist” results from a narrow-minded and possibly paranoid worldview, sadly common among the American middle class religious fundies whose experience with life on this planet as most humans know it is severely limited (by their choice, at this time of our history).

    The lack of basic understanding of human reality here is only rivaled by the lack of empathy (for women, but not only). Faith without compassion is an empty vessel.

  24. It’s somewhat rich to decry narrow-mindedness, lack of empathy, and lack of basic understanding, then follow it up with this whopper of a generalization:

    sadly common among the American middle class religious fundies whose experience with life on this planet as most humans know it is severely limited (by their choice, at this time of our history).

    This entire conversation seems to have taken a rather bizarre turn, not uncommon on these interwebs.

  25. It appears that my comments have seriously scandalized dozens of people on another blog, and got everyone here distracted from the main point, so I would like apologize for that and ask everyone to just disregard my previous comments if that’s possible.

  26. Elaine Krewer, your comments. in my opinion, are not excessive and should not be withdrawn.
    .
    They raise a legitimate issue regarding human nature and the supportive role men and women should be willing to offer each other because of their mutual love and respect for each other and the children they created by virtue of their love.
    .
    Neither man or woman is perfect…it is ok for a woman to request assistance when she is worn out from minding children and tending house all day. It also ok for a loving husband who cares about his wife to assist her with the children or tend to house work when she needs some personal down time.
    .
    It is also perfectly ok for a woman to become the bread winner when her husband is unable to provide for the family due to sudden illness or unexpected job loss. He is neither less of a man because of his wife’s entry into the work place and she is not less of a woman because she is compelled to work outside the home. They are a family and families who love one another support each other.
    .
    You owe no apology for your astute observations and you are not, in my view, a radical feminist in rebellion mode…you are a sensible woman asking reasonable questions about men and women trying to live honorable lives in tough and uncompromising times.
    .
    Please stay the course.

  27. I am new to this particular conversation, but when I saw the words Margaret Sanger, I immediately thought of a racist eugenicist. Personally I agree with Slainte just above me in the comment line. Sometimes when I come home I do the ironing or the cooking or whatever. My wife and I share duties. She likes having a job and it gives her a sense of self-esteem, given that her kids from a previous marriage (her former husband is deceased) are grown now. As for anything Margaret Sanger says, it may be feminism but it is NOT femininity and therein lies the difference.
    .
    PS, whether or nor anyone likes it, when my wife needs me to iron her duty uniforms, I probably will. A little effort for domestic tranquility goes a long way.

  28. Elaine,

    Kudos to you, but I agree with slainte. Based on the silence to which your apology was treated, and the tenor of subsequent comments, the words that occur to me are pearls and swine.

  29. He chose to dismiss me instead of addressing my argument.

    That’s not what is meant by ad hominem. You’ve an extensive Theory of Everything regarding contemporary social relations. If you use those lenses, you’re not seeing Margaret Sanger clearly. Her advocacy of eugenics is her most salient feature, and the cause to which she devoted her life. The rest is derivative.

  30. While Margaret Sanger’s advocacy of eugenics may have been her most salient feature as Art Deco suggests, she did not accomplish her goals without the silent, but substantial and continuous monetary infusion received from some of the most notable families and foundations in the United States.
    .
    See, http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_04robthecrad.html
    .
    While some would elect to make the saga of Margaret Sanger exclusively a “feminist issue”, by doing so, one misses the bigger and perhaps more frightening story of a long term investment (since at least 1913) by very powerful people who have shaped our society through intentional and aggressive promotion of population control techniques which have included, without limitation, contraception, abortion, and sterilization of our fellow human beings.
    .
    I suggest that Margaret Sanger was merely a figurehead behind which lurks a far bigger and more inimical hydra.

  31. @Art Deco

    That’s not what is meant by ad hominem. You’ve an extensive Theory of Everything regarding contemporary social relations. If you use those lenses, you’re not seeing Margaret Sanger clearly. Her advocacy of eugenics is her most salient feature, and the cause to which she devoted her life. The rest is derivative.

    Sanger’s eugenics doesn’t negate her feminism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In the context of this discussion, Sanger’s eugenics is as relevant as her view on trade unions or the progressive income tax. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Sanger published a radical feminist monthly in 1914 titled “The Women Rebel”. The masthead read:

    No Gods. No Masters

    As explains:

    Sanger used the journal to assert that every woman had a right to be “absolute mistress of her own body,” including the right to practice birth control, a term coined for The Woman Rebel.

    While you accuse me of being blinded by my worldview, you refuse to accept Sanger’s own words and actions testifying that she was in fact a radical feminist. Nothing I can say would convince you otherwise, because no amount of proof would overcome your illogical argument that she can’t have been a feminist because she was a eugenicist.

    Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand, but even if you look at where the two positions would collide she appears to have chosen feminism over eugenics. In my admittedly brief research, I haven’t found for example her exhorting women with the right genetics to give birth early and often. To the contrary, she even laments that her own mother had so many children. But again, even if she did advocate for women with the right genes to reproduce, it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion at hand because the speech under discussion had nothing to do with eugenics, let alone birth control or abortion. It wasn’t selling eugenics, it was selling feminist rebellion under the form of advocating “scientific” marriage counseling. But as I mentioned before, there is a profound unwillingness or inability to recognize feminist rebellion. I can’t imagine a better example of this than the absurd claim that Sanger wasn’t in feminist rebellion.

  32. Reposting the comment to fix botched html code.

    @Art Deco

    That’s not what is meant by ad hominem. You’ve an extensive Theory of Everything regarding contemporary social relations. If you use those lenses, you’re not seeing Margaret Sanger clearly. Her advocacy of eugenics is her most salient feature, and the cause to which she devoted her life. The rest is derivative.

    Sanger’s eugenics doesn’t negate her feminism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In the context of this discussion, Sanger’s eugenics is as relevant as her view on trade unions or the progressive income tax. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Sanger published a radical feminist monthly in 1914 titled “The Women Rebel”. The masthead read:

    No Gods. No Masters

    As this site explains:

    Sanger used the journal to assert that every woman had a right to be “absolute mistress of her own body,” including the right to practice birth control, a term coined for The Woman Rebel.

    While you accuse me of being blinded by my worldview, you refuse to accept Sanger’s own words and actions testifying that she was in fact a radical feminist. Nothing I can say would convince you otherwise, because no amount of proof would overcome your illogical argument that she can’t have been a feminist because she was a eugenicist.

    Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand, but even if you look at where the two positions would collide she appears to have chosen feminism over eugenics. In my admittedly brief research, I haven’t found for example her exhorting women with the right genetics to give birth early and often. To the contrary, she even laments that her own mother had so many children. But again, even if she did advocate for women with the right genes to reproduce, it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion at hand because the speech under discussion had nothing to do with eugenics, let alone birth control or abortion. It wasn’t selling eugenics, it was selling feminist rebellion under the form of advocating “scientific” marriage counseling. But as I mentioned before, there is a profound unwillingness or inability to recognize feminist rebellion. I can’t imagine a better example of this than the absurd claim that Sanger wasn’t in feminist rebellion.

  33. “Sanger’s eugenics doesn’t negate her feminism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.”

    I would assume, Dalrock, that any authentic feminism would have to be compatible with authentic humanism. So far no one has devised any sort of eugenics that is compatible with authentic humanism. Therefore, Sanger’s eugenics does conflict with and largely negate her feminism, at least from the eyes of a Christian who seeks the authentic. Put it this way: Sanger did not value the true feminism of black women one bit. Mary De Voe’s comment above that “50% of all abortions are [of] women [i.e., female babies]” is also pertinent, although I think the percentage must be higher. No, in the end such ‘feminism’ is just a charade and an excuse for absolute power over children who are yet to be born.

  34. TomD

    I would assume, Dalrock, that any authentic feminism would have to be compatible with authentic humanism. So far no one has devised any sort of eugenics that is compatible with authentic humanism. Therefore, Sanger’s eugenics does conflict with and largely negate her feminism, at least from the eyes of a Christian who seeks the authentic. Put it this way: Sanger did not value the true feminism of black women one bit. Mary De Voe’s comment above that “50% of all abortions are [of] women [i.e., female babies]” is also pertinent, although I think the percentage must be higher. No, in the end such ‘feminism’ is just a charade and an excuse for absolute power over children who are yet to be born.

    Your argument assumes that both of the following are true:
    .
    1) It is impossible for a woman to hold two logically inconsistent views at the same time (or a man for that matter).
    2) It is impossible for a person to indulge in sin unless their philosophical beliefs are “authentic”.
    .
    I won’t try to guess at which of the above assumptions is more foolish.
    .
    You guys should just come out and say it:

    Sanger can’t possibly have been a feminist because… Dalrock.

  35. 1) It is impossible for a woman to hold two logically inconsistent views at the same time (or a man for that matter).

    That’s ridiculous. I maintained no such position. It’s entirely possible for anyone, man or woman, to hold logically inconsistent views. Doing so opens such a person to logical criticism, which I just did in the case of Sanger. You are confusing criticism with…what? I’m not sure. An imagined demand of mine that Sanger not be illogical? Heck, I’d rather she be illogical, it makes things easier for me. Also, her problem is just logic, it’s her spiritual sickness that is also in play here.

    2) It is impossible for a person to indulge in sin unless their philosophical beliefs are “authentic”.

    That’s also ridiculous. I again maintained no such position. Words such as ‘authentic’ have specific meanings in Christian philosophy. Sanger’s philosophy, if she had any outside of gross utilitarianism, certainly were not ‘authentic’ because they did not conform to Christian norms. The ‘authenticity’ of a philosophy is simply a guide as to whether it is Christian. So I can’t even imagine what you are getting at, other than the possibility that Christians should accept non- or anti-Christian philosophies as authentic from a Christian viewpoint. If that is your point then sorry, I have no obligation to agree, and in the case of an anti-Christian philosophy I must not agree.

    And what is the point of your mentioning of sin? People sin without having any philosophical beliefs whatsoever, in case you haven’t noticed. Christians who invent or follow ‘authentic’ philosophies also sin, in fact every one of them does, including me. I see no link between philosophy and sin, other than motive (as in “I love this philosophy because it enables and validates my sinful actions”).

    I don’t think you made a deliberate attempt to invent straw men here (if you did it was inept). I’ll just pass it off as multiple non sequiturs.

  36. Let me come at it from another angle, Dalrock. I’ll come right out and say it: Margaret Sanger was a pagan and anti-Christian feminist. Since Christianity is real, Sanger was not a real feminist. PDQ

  37. @TomD

    And what is the point of your mentioning of sin?…

    I don’t think you made a deliberate attempt to invent straw men here (if you did it was inept). I’ll just pass it off as multiple non sequiturs.

    It isn’t a non sequitur, you missed a large part of the discussion. I’ve been talking about sin from my very first comment on this thread:

    The problem we have today is that we can’t spot the sin of feminist rebellion when it is right in front of us…

    My reference to the sin of feminist rebellion is what lead Art Deco to refer to me as procrustian in my thinking.

    Let me come at it from another angle, Dalrock. I’ll come right out and say it: Margaret Sanger was a pagan and anti-Christian feminist. Since Christianity is real, Sanger was not a real feminist.

    Are you saying the only real feminist is a Christian feminist? Since feminism is a rebellion against God’s order, I would argue the exact opposite. But assuming I’m reading you correctly, I think I understand our disagreement now.
    .
    Since several commenters have objected to my describing feminist rebellion as a sin, is this a feminist Catholic site? This would explain a great deal, and if so, I apologize for badly misreading the nature of this blog. I never would have joined the discussion had I not thought this was a traditional/anti-feminist space.

  38. is this a feminist Catholic site?

    No, we’re just not singlemindedly obsessed with looking at every solitary issue through the prism of one particular mode of analysis.

  39. Paul, I kindly disagree with your statement that the comment directed at Darlock wasn’t an ad hominem attack. Just as you dismissed him as an “angry young man on the internet”. If either comment dealt with the issues instead of dismissing him, no matter what you think of him, and laid a foundation then it would not an ad hominen attack but it was just a bold assertion with no support. I point to this website to help define terms:
    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
    Peace

  40. Walter,

    The problem is that the original comment was not a logical fallacy – since you’re busy on providing definitions, an ad hominem attack need not be a fallacious one if it relates to the person’s credibility. Art’s point, and I think this has been well demonstrated by ensuing comments, is that Dalrock tends to view many of these debates through a particular prism (anti-feminism), which allows us to forget the larger issue – in this case, that Sanger was a eugenicist creep.

    Also, many commenters did deal with the substance of the issue, and I’d repeat that Art’s comment in this context is also substantive. This is a rhetorical trick that I find particularly annoying in online debates where one person harps on one particular comment and then plays the victim, pretending that they are being treated unfairly. You are not the first person to point out my “angry young man” comment (which, by the way, I do regret making), all the while ignoring all of the other comments in this thread.

  41. As one acquainted with both this website and Dalrock’s for several years now, I’ll put my anonymous neck on the line and say that, whether what Art Deco and Paul Zummo have done is arguing ad hominem to Dalrock (it appears to me that they have been doing this, though seems ultimately only they could give the evidence necessary to prove it), they have at least too hastily dismissed his argument as ridiculously without merit. I cannot see what is procrustean about Dalrock’s mode of thinking, unless it’s procrustean merely to choose to favor a particular topic to address in one’s blog, something that almost every blogger does. And if one has read much of Dalrock’s blog and come away with the idea that he is “the angry young man on the internet,” the one who concludes this has himself provided evidence of his own procrustean mode of thought.

  42. Sorry, did not see Paul’s 8:38 am comment by the time I posted mine. That comment pretty much makes mine retractable inasmuch as it addresses Paul’s “angry young man” comment.

Comments are closed.