DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971

Transcribe
Translate

Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971

1970-09-11 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 5

BIRTH CONTROL: 
                      is it genocide?
The Guardian runs an article under the headline "U.S. tries to reduce third world population." Various left groups attack Planned Parenthood as an agent of genocide. In all of this there is the explicit charge that any talk of the population explosion is a reactionary smoke screen to cover up the desire of the United States to continue ranking off 60% of the world's resources, while holding down third world population growth which threatens to eat into that 60%.
     There is a glaring ommission in most of these arguments; but before I go into that, I want to point out the areas where I do agree: (1) It is a clear cut case of economic blackmail when the United States offers foreign aid only on the condition that contraceptives (usually the loop or pill) be pushed throughout the country. (2) There are developing countries which are underpopulated in relation to their labor force needs-- it would be absurd to limit populated growth in such a case before the necessary degree of industrialization has been reached so that people power can be replaced by machine power. (3) Every case of involuntary sterilization of the human rights of that woman.
     One of the most hysterical articles come from the Red Woman's Detachment and is called "The  Genocideology of Birth Control." Any attempt to make birth control available to people who previously couldn't afford it is called "vomiting on the American working class a poisonous conoction of left-over neo-malthusianism and curdled genocide." Lifting phraseology from [underline] Perking Review, Malthus is called "a sanctimonious running dog of British Imperialism." Women working for free abortion on demand are accused of trying to ensure "the phoney sexual revolution."
     They have totally ignored the implications of their argument, the implications for black and brown woman, for all working women. That is, they neglect the only argue for the right of women to have an inlimited number of children, BECAUSE IF THEY DID, the inhumanity of their position would be clear. Don't tell me that a woman living at near-starvation level, whose children's minds and bodies are unhealthy because they don't get the right kinds of food, who is forced to prostitution and petty larceny to feed and clothe her children--that this woman is supposed to fight for the right to have more children.
     In this oppressive, capitalist society, the more children a woman has (note: I don't say: the more children a man and woman have), the more exploited and oppressed she is. If wanting to have fewer children and thus be less exploited and oppressed is counterrevolutionary, then I am tempted to accuse the Red Women's Detachment of desiring to further the oppression of women on the grounds that it raises their revolutionary potential. But that's too cynical, so I won't  make the accusation.
     The Red Women's Detachment says: "Middle-class women and women's liberation groups can afford to make a big joke out of these issues (birth control and abortion) but women on welfare and working women with small incomes can't." I don;t think women on welfare and working-women with small incomes can or do make a joke out of the other side of the coin--having many children, some perhaps wanted, but most probably unwanted.
     The heart of the paper is the argument that "the monstrously reactionary capitalist class systematically cultivates pseudo-scientific theories (i.e., birth control, abortion, and sterilization) and props them up with massive propaganda campaigns in order to undermine the revolutionary potential of the proletariat." The drift of the entire paper is that birth control, abortion sterilization are counter-revolutionary in and of themselves.
     The fact that a middle-class woman can obtain an abortion if she wants to doesn't reflect on the abortion itself: it's hideous reflection on the system that will satisfy the needs of only those who can pay. The fact that a middle- class woman wants birth control drugs or devices doesn't make them any safer for her than for the working women.
     The facr is, that in this society, the woman with children is exploited and oppressed, to a certain degree if she is middle-class but to a cruel and inhuman degree if she is without a man and must support herself and her children. Alleviation of this kind of exploitation and oppression is not counter revolutionary. It is the sine qua non of the revolutionary participation of women in the struggles for a free society.
     Human rights is always the fundamental issue. Perhaps the single most important right for woman us the right to control over her own body. The fact that women must bear society's children lies behind a multitude of oppressive factors: from the notion that "woman's place is in the home." to economic discrimination on the grounds that a woman is just a "temporary" worker, to the double duty many women must do maintain both a job and a home. 
     As a member of women's liberation, however, I am appalled by arguments that encourage, for example, rapid population growth among blacks in the U.S., presumably to "equalize" the balance between white and black populations. That view sees black women as little more than brood mares, whore funtion os to produce more and more of the right kind of people. That view is opposed to women's fight for freedom.
     That view is as blind to the rights and needs of women as the corresponding view among Catholics (at least among those who obey the Pope). The only group that holds something like that view and that seems headed in a more humane direction is the Black Panther Party, which-- if they [underline]are encouraging the birth of more black children--is at least concerned with putting into practice the equal responsibility of men and women for the care and raising of children.
     That view ignores the fact that the essence of a post-revolutionary society is quality, but not the numerical equality of all radical groups so that they can act as checks and balances upon each other-- not the kind of numerical equality that is a way of pitting power groups against power groups.
     It must not be forgotten that in nearly every present society, encouraging population growth (that neutral, clinical phrase) really means oppressing women by concentrating on their function as breeders. Unfortunately, the opposite side of the coin, discouraging population growth, (at least at the present time) also means oppressing women by forcing them to use inadequately tested and possibly hazardous drugs and devices.
   But when women's liberation groups attack the drug companies for "pill pushing," it is not to be seen as an anti-contraceptive campaign. It is a campaign for full disclosure-- disclosure by the drug companies on harmful and/or unpleasant side effects and disclosure by doctors on the statistical effectiveness of each kind of contraceptive drug or device (you'd be amazed at the discrepancies). This must serve as the basis upon which women can make informed choices.
     A woman cannot make an informed choice about the way she wishes to use her body without complete freedom to choose among the various methods of contraception, including sterilization.
     It seems clear from the actions of women on women's liberation that they are wholly aware of the direct forms of oppression that result from "population growth." These women are, in increasing numbers, choosing to remain unmarried, or if they are married choosing to remain childless.
      Disregarding the oppression experienced within the institution of marriage itself, for the moment, these decisions are obviously made to avoid the unavoidable oppression that-- in this society -- is the lot og women with children. Birth control, far from being genocide in and of itself, is for the women seeking liberation from [underline]only way out of one of the worst manifestations of one of the worst manifestations of the oppression of women.
     In an article on the liberation of blacks and women in the [underline] Black [underline]Scholar, Linda La Rue writes: "the black women is demanding a new set of female definitions and recognition of herself as a citizen, companion, and confident not a matriarchal villain or a step stool baby-maker. Role integration advocates the complementary recognition of man and woman, not the competitive recognition of same.
   "the recent, unabated controversy over the use of birth control in the black community is of grave importance here, Black people, even the 'most liberated of mind.' are still infused with ascribed inferiority of females and the natural superiority of males.
      "How many potential revolutionary warriors stand abandoned in orphanages while blacks rhetorize disdain for birth control as a 'trick of the man; to halt the growth of black population? Why are there not more revolutionary couples adopting black children? Could it be that hte American concept of bastard, which is equivalent to inferior in our society, reflects black anglo-saxonism?"
     "Do blacks, like whites, discriminate against black babies because they do not represent 'our own personal' image? Or do blacks, like the most racist of white, require that a child be of their own blood before they can love that child or feed it? DOes the vanguard recognize the existence of term 'bastard'?"
     "Someone once Suggested that the word 'bastard' be deleted from the values of balck people. Would it not be more revolutionary for blacks to advocate a five-year moratorium on black births until every black baby in and American orphanage was adopted by one or more black parents? Then blacks could really have a valid reason for continuing to give birth."
     "Children would mean more than simply a role for black women to play, or fuel for the legendary vanguard."
     "Indeed, blacks would be able to tap the potential of the existing children and could sensibly add more potential to the black struggle for liberation. To do this would be to do something no other civilization, modern of course, has ever done, and blacks would be allowing every black child to have a home and not just a plot in some understaffed children;s penal farm.

A WOMAN?                           September 11, 1970             5

Saving...

BIRTH CONTROL: is it genocide? The Guardian runs an article under the headline "U.S. tries to reduce third world population." Various left groups attack Planned Parenthood as an agent of genocide. In all of this there is the explicit charge that any talk of the population explosion is a reactionary smoke screen to cover up the desire of the United States to continue ranking off 60% of the world's resources, while holding down third world population growth which threatens to eat into that 60%. There is a glaring ommission in most of these arguments; but before I go into that, I want to point out the areas where I do agree: (1) It is a clear cut case of economic blackmail when the United States offers foreign aid only on the condition that contraceptives (usually the loop or pill) be pushed throughout the country. (2) There are developing countries which are underpopulated in relation to their labor force needs-- it would be absurd to limit populated growth in such a case before the necessary degree of industrialization has been reached so that people power can be replaced by machine power. (3) Every case of involuntary sterilization of the human rights of that woman. One of the most hysterical articles come from the Red Woman's Detachment and is called "The Genocideology of Birth Control." Any attempt to make birth control available to people who previously couldn't afford it is called "vomiting on the American working class a poisonous conoction of left-over neo-malthusianism and curdled genocide." Lifting phraseology from [underline] Perking Review, Malthus is called "a sanctimonious running dog of British Imperialism." Women working for free abortion on demand are accused of trying to ensure "the phoney sexual revolution." They have totally ignored the implications of their argument, the implications for black and brown woman, for all working women. That is, they neglect the only argue for the right of women to have an inlimited number of children, BECAUSE IF THEY DID, the inhumanity of their position would be clear. Don't tell me that a woman living at near-starvation level, whose children's minds and bodies are unhealthy because they don't get the right kinds of food, who is forced to prostitution and petty larceny to feed and clothe her children--that this woman is supposed to fight for the right to have more children. In this oppressive, capitalist society, the more children a woman has (note: I don't say: the more children a man and woman have), the more exploited and oppressed she is. If wanting to have fewer children and thus be less exploited and oppressed is counterrevolutionary, then I am tempted to accuse the Red Women's Detachment of desiring to further the oppression of women on the grounds that it raises their revolutionary potential. But that's too cynical, so I won't make the accusation. The Red Women's Detachment says: "Middle-class women and women's liberation groups can afford to make a big joke out of these issues (birth control and abortion) but women on welfare and working women with small incomes can't." I don;t think women on welfare and working-women with small incomes can or do make a joke out of the other side of the coin--having many children, some perhaps wanted, but most probably unwanted. The heart of the paper is the argument that "the monstrously reactionary capitalist class systematically cultivates pseudo-scientific theories (i.e., birth control, abortion, and sterilization) and props them up with massive propaganda campaigns in order to undermine the revolutionary potential of the proletariat." The drift of the entire paper is that birth control, abortion sterilization are counter-revolutionary in and of themselves. The fact that a middle-class woman can obtain an abortion if she wants to doesn't reflect on the abortion itself: it's hideous reflection on the system that will satisfy the needs of only those who can pay. The fact that a middle- class woman wants birth control drugs or devices doesn't make them any safer for her than for the working women. The facr is, that in this society, the woman with children is exploited and oppressed, to a certain degree if she is middle-class but to a cruel and inhuman degree if she is without a man and must support herself and her children. Alleviation of this kind of exploitation and oppression is not counter revolutionary. It is the sine qua non of the revolutionary participation of women in the struggles for a free society. Human rights is always the fundamental issue. Perhaps the single most important right for woman us the right to control over her own body. The fact that women must bear society's children lies behind a multitude of oppressive factors: from the notion that "woman's place is in the home." to economic discrimination on the grounds that a woman is just a "temporary" worker, to the double duty many women must do maintain both a job and a home. As a member of women's liberation, however, I am appalled by arguments that encourage, for example, rapid population growth among blacks in the U.S., presumably to "equalize" the balance between white and black populations. That view sees black women as little more than brood mares, whore funtion os to produce more and more of the right kind of people. That view is opposed to women's fight for freedom. That view is as blind to the rights and needs of women as the corresponding view among Catholics (at least among those who obey the Pope). The only group that holds something like that view and that seems headed in a more humane direction is the Black Panther Party, which-- if they [underline]are encouraging the birth of more black children--is at least concerned with putting into practice the equal responsibility of men and women for the care and raising of children. That view ignores the fact that the essence of a post-revolutionary society is quality, but not the numerical equality of all radical groups so that they can act as checks and balances upon each other-- not the kind of numerical equality that is a way of pitting power groups against power groups. It must not be forgotten that in nearly every present society, encouraging population growth (that neutral, clinical phrase) really means oppressing women by concentrating on their function as breeders. Unfortunately, the opposite side of the coin, discouraging population growth, (at least at the present time) also means oppressing women by forcing them to use inadequately tested and possibly hazardous drugs and devices. But when women's liberation groups attack the drug companies for "pill pushing," it is not to be seen as an anti-contraceptive campaign. It is a campaign for full disclosure-- disclosure by the drug companies on harmful and/or unpleasant side effects and disclosure by doctors on the statistical effectiveness of each kind of contraceptive drug or device (you'd be amazed at the discrepancies). This must serve as the basis upon which women can make informed choices. A woman cannot make an informed choice about the way she wishes to use her body without complete freedom to choose among the various methods of contraception, including sterilization. It seems clear from the actions of women on women's liberation that they are wholly aware of the direct forms of oppression that result from "population growth." These women are, in increasing numbers, choosing to remain unmarried, or if they are married choosing to remain childless. Disregarding the oppression experienced within the institution of marriage itself, for the moment, these decisions are obviously made to avoid the unavoidable oppression that-- in this society -- is the lot og women with children. Birth control, far from being genocide in and of itself, is for the women seeking liberation from [underline]only way out of one of the worst manifestations of one of the worst manifestations of the oppression of women. In an article on the liberation of blacks and women in the [underline] Black [underline]Scholar, Linda La Rue writes: "the black women is demanding a new set of female definitions and recognition of herself as a citizen, companion, and confident not a matriarchal villain or a step stool baby-maker. Role integration advocates the complementary recognition of man and woman, not the competitive recognition of same. "the recent, unabated controversy over the use of birth control in the black community is of grave importance here, Black people, even the 'most liberated of mind.' are still infused with ascribed inferiority of females and the natural superiority of males. "How many potential revolutionary warriors stand abandoned in orphanages while blacks rhetorize disdain for birth control as a 'trick of the man; to halt the growth of black population? Why are there not more revolutionary couples adopting black children? Could it be that hte American concept of bastard, which is equivalent to inferior in our society, reflects black anglo-saxonism?" "Do blacks, like whites, discriminate against black babies because they do not represent 'our own personal' image? Or do blacks, like the most racist of white, require that a child be of their own blood before they can love that child or feed it? DOes the vanguard recognize the existence of term 'bastard'?" "Someone once Suggested that the word 'bastard' be deleted from the values of balck people. Would it not be more revolutionary for blacks to advocate a five-year moratorium on black births until every black baby in and American orphanage was adopted by one or more black parents? Then blacks could really have a valid reason for continuing to give birth." "Children would mean more than simply a role for black women to play, or fuel for the legendary vanguard." "Indeed, blacks would be able to tap the potential of the existing children and could sensibly add more potential to the black struggle for liberation. To do this would be to do something no other civilization, modern of course, has ever done, and blacks would be allowing every black child to have a home and not just a plot in some understaffed children;s penal farm. A WOMAN? September 11, 1970 5