April 24, 2011

Planned Parenthood Predates the Pill

by  Marina Adshade
It is impossible for me to think about Easter without thinking about estrus – the peak of female sexuality that takes place when a woman is most fertile. It should be our favourite time of the month and it is good that we honour that every year with this excellent weekend in celebration of fertility. Hard boiled eggs, chicks, bunnies are not things that I think about mid-cycle, but for those who are trying to reproduce (as opposed to desperately trying not to reproduce) these are apt symbols.
So Easter is a good time to talk about fertility, a subject that has fascinated economists ever since Malthus pointed out in the 1780’s that breeding like rabbits was not in the best interests of humanity. As most of us know, fertility is currently at an extremely low level with most of the developed world countries, and in some of the developing world countries, people are not having enough children to sustain the population. What you may not know though is that this fall in fertility is not the result of the introduction of the birth control pill in the 1960’s, but is rather the continuation of a trend that began 200 years ago – before contraceptives were even available.
Before we begin, here is a brief history of contraceptive technology. Before the cervical cap introduced around 1838 there was no real technology that could be used to prevent pregnancy. Sure, Casanova was rumoured to have encouraged the use of hollowed out lemons to prevent pregnancy but I can’t imagine that many woman thought that was a “fun idea”. In the 1850’s, thanks to the efforts of Charles Goodyear to vulcanize rubber, condoms became available that were fairly inexpensive and effective at preventing pregnancy. Diaphragms went on the market in 1882 followed by the IUD in 1909. The queen of all birth control was invented in the early 1950’s but didn’t become legally available in the US until the mid-1960’s and only then thanks to the tireless efforts of Margaret Sanger who fought to have oral contraceptives legalized.
Why this timeline is interesting is that fertility began to decline around 1800, long before contraceptives became available. In the US, for example, fertility fell every decade between 1800 and the beginning of the baby-boom at the end of the 1930’s; from seven children per woman in 1800 to two children per woman in 1940. European countries experienced similar declining fertilities with France, surprisingly, leading the pack. (Ironically, France is a modern poster child for how government policy can effectively be used to raise fertility rates)
So how did women accomplish this decline in fertility without contraceptives? First of all they delayed getting married until their mid to late twenties, cutting their reproductive years short, or didn’t marry at all. They practised colitis interruptus which, when faced with few alternatives, is surprisingly effective. Means for abortions were available and widely used as was infanticide. Sodomy and intercourse without ejaculation were also used to control fertility but these methods were apparently more popular within prostitution than within marriage.
What makes this an economic story is that all of these fertility control methods were available pre-1800 meaning that families in the past could have controlled their fertility more effectively – they didn’t need to wait for the availability of contraceptives – but they chose not to. It is when the Industrial Revolution arrived with increased urbanization, reduced agricultural employment and higher wages for educated workers that families began to reduce their size in response to these economic changes.
Contraceptives when seen in this light are not the catalyst for social change and family sizes are not smaller today because contraceptives are available. Contraceptives are available because people wanted smaller families and contraceptives made it possible to achieve that goal at a lower cost. The fact that the expected number of children born per woman in her child-bearing years in the US today is almost exactly the same level today as it was in the mid-1930’s demonstrates that achieving the current level of fertility was possible even without the birth control pill.
Murphy, Tommy (2010). “Old Habits Die Hard (Sometimes): Can département heterogeneity tell us something about the French fertility decline?” Università Bocconi Working Paper 364.
Greenwood, Jeremy and Ananth Seshadri (2002). “The U.S. Demographic Transition” American Economic Review, vol. 92(2) pages 153-159.


April 18, 2011

US: Why fiscal conservatives care about Planned Parenthood

The shock is palpable across the Beltway media upon hearing Harry Reid confirm that, yes, it's the funding of Planned Parenthood that is the main sticking point in the budget negotiations that threaten a shutdown of the federal government.
Shocking because what's at stake – federal subsidies for contraception, cancer screening and STD testing – are largely uncontroversial. Shocking because while the rabid sex-hating, abortion-demented, abstinence-only crowd has a lot of power over Republicans, it was assumed they didn't own them wholesale – especially since the majority of Republicans support contraception use. Shocking because the common wisdom in DC was that the new Tea Party-controlled Republicans were about "fiscal conservatism", and the Republican demands for the defunding of Planned Parenthood are pure, old-school culture warring.
Not to gloat, but I did predict back in February that this would be the issue that brought everything to a head. The reason the conventional wisdom is wrong on this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "fiscal conservatism".
The belief is that fiscal conservatives are merely debt-averse and want to cut spending, while the fact that these so-called fiscal conservatives routinely elect Republicans who drive up the deficit is ignored. But I would argue that fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with the deficit, and is, instead, about who conservatives believe is and isn't deserving of government largesse.
It is and always has been about excluding from the social contract poorer people, unmarried women, gays, liberals, pointy-headed intellectuals and, especially, people of colour, and keeping all government spending aimed at white, conservative Christians – the richer, the better.
Planned Parenthood has become a symbol of the kind of government spending that fiscal conservatives reject.
The clientele of Planned Parenthood is the intersection of many groups that are considered unworthy by fiscal conservatives: lower-income, female, assumed to be unmarried and/or queer. Conservatives have argued, roughly forever, that such women should be cut off from any federal spending, with the hope that deprivation will force them to marry for sustenance.
If women can avoid childbirth, they're less needy, and in the conservative imagination, that much more likely to avoid getting married for support. The fact that Planned Parenthood touches on the anti-sex faction of the Republican party is an added bonus, ensuring that they'll have rabid support from anti-choicers.
In the 1980s, Reagan was able to catalyse the resentments of fiscal conservatives into the image of the "welfare queen". The stereotype was of a black woman who takes taxpayers' money and uses it to buy herself Cadillacs and other such luxuries. Reagan claimed to have evidence that such a woman existed, but it was never presented or found.
Essentially, what has happened on the right is that this image has been updated to what I'd call the "welfare slut": a low-income woman who is screwing on your dime, while you're out there working and your own sex life leaves much to be desired. (They can probably count on this resentment because most people would get laid more if they could.)
The welfare slut has been invoked, if subsequently retracted, by Kirsten Powers, who painted women who use subsidised contraception as addled-brained sluts who end up getting abortions anyway because they're too stupid to use the contraception the government gives them. The welfare slut was also imagined by Dana Loesch, who described the patients and supporters of Planned Parenthood this way:
"But you're not empowered when you're expecting Uncle Sam to act like your sugar daddy, and take care of your abortions and take care of your birth control, and pay your bills and everything else?"
The image of the welfare slut has been carefully constructed by the right in recent months to be as racist as possible, as well.
A nationwide billboard campaign linking black women and abortion invokes the Reagan-era stereotype of black women as neglectful mothers and over-sexed harridans, and reinforces the message to the base that the only way to put these women in their place is take away their reproductive healthcare.
The campaign has worked beautifully with the Republican base, even among those who might otherwise support the right to abortion and contraception. A liberal writer at Salon talking about her strange friendship with a pro-choice Republican captured a perfect example of how this works:
"She told me she didn't believe government had any business funding [Planned Parenthood] in the first place. That this isn't about abortion or hating women but ways the government doesn't need to be involved."
It's not that fiscal conservatives are against sex or contraception. They're all for it … for themselves. It's those slutty women taking government money who need to be cut off.
So, for those wondering how it can be that something as minor as the funding of Planned Parenthood could be the dealbreaker that threatens a government shutdown, I would say that it's not minor on the right.
It's a symbol of everything they believe about who and who isn't deserving of government spending. This is about sending a strong message to the base that Republicans take seriously the mandate to cut off everyone not considered, to borrow Sarah Palin's phrase, a "Real American".
For any genuine fiscal conservatives out there, the evidence is that cutting off Planned Parenthood would actually raise government expenditures. But the Republican base won't mind that as long as the money isn't going to the "wrong people".
Source: A Marcotte, The Guardian (UK), 8 April 2011

April 17, 2011

American Social Health Association

April 16, 2011

is it correct ?

Imagine a talk show where instead of listening to the self-promoting chatter of a Charlie Sheen or Donald Trump, you watched Mohandas Gandhi as he nervously talked about birth control before getting into a heated exchange with fellow guest Margaret Sanger over the concept of Planned Parenthood.
Far-fetched? Not really.
It was done about 30 years ago, on "Meeting of Minds," a television show that was the brainchild of the late television auteur and renaissance man Steve Allen (1921–2000), the originator of "The Tonight Show."
For one hour each week, viewers could flip the dial to PBS and watch such diverse historical figures as Plato and Martin Luther or Cleopatra and Teddy Roosevelt sit down, chit-chat and do the 'talk show thing.'


Planned Parenthood and the Soviet Model

пионер = всем ребятам пример

"[W]e could well take example from Russia," advised Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, "where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government."
My, how far modern liberal Democrats have progressed.
Sanger, Planned Parenthood matron and racial-eugenicist, who ran a "Negro Project," who spoke to a KKK rally in 1926, who wished to rid America of its "human weeds" and "morons" and "imbeciles," and who wanted birth control for "race improvement," had just returned from a pilgrimage to Stalin's Russia. Like many Potemkin progressives, she went there to soak in the glorious triumphs of the communist motherland. Each progressive dupe had a particular interest; John Dewey, for instance, hailed the Bolsheviks' "Great Experiment" in public education. Sanger marveled at Lenin's and Stalin's wondrous advancements for women.
And so, in the June 1935 edition of her flagship publication, Birth Control Review, in an article titled, "Birth Control in Russia," Sanger concluded:
Theoretically, there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia. It is accepted … on the grounds of health and human right…. [W]e could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.
I could quote more, including this jaw-dropping prediction: "All the officials with whom I discussed the matter stated that as soon as the economic and social plans of Soviet Russia are realized, neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary or desired. A functioning Communistic society will assure the happiness of every child, and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education."
Now there, ladies and gentleman, is progressive utopianism, an absolute faith in central planners. Contrary to the Planned Parenthood founder's optimism, abortions skyrocketed to seven million annually (overestimte;) in the USSR.
Looks like Margaret Sanger was wrong on that one. Talk about being duped.
What struck me in recently re-reading this article is how Democrats in America have arrived at Sanger's ideal, where Planned Parenthood's services have become, in their mind, "part of the regular welfare service of the government" -- just like good old Stalinist Russia.
Consider the hysterical response by Democrats to completely legitimate Republican attempts -- amid record deficits and debt levels -- to cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood:
"The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate," vowed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), echoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who told House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) that there's no chance defunding would pass the Senate. Indeed, how could there be? Democrats have a majority there.
Reid said Republicans had placed a "bull's eye on women in America," preventing them from getting "health services they need."
Democrats are united in their vitriol: "The real reason that the right-wing extremists in Congress orchestrated this outrageous government shutdown is to try and defund Planned Parenthood as part of their ideological assault on women's health care," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO).
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) calmly explained, "This is a war on women. They're trying to inject their politics and their religion into local family planning."
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) insisted that defunding efforts were "nothing more than an opportunity for the right wing in the House to sock it to women."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a "very dangerous situation for the health -- the reproductive health -- of women across our country." Pelosi told reporters: "It's degrading to women; it's disrespectful; it doesn't make any sense; and if you want to reduce the number of abortions in our country, you must commit to supporting contraception and family planning." The lifelong Roman Catholic and mother of five said Republicans were using Planned Parenthood as a "whipping boy."
And the always measured Barbara Boxer described Republican efforts as a "vendetta" against women, insisting, "Behind each of these Republican proposed cuts, there are thousands, maybe millions of people who would be hurt."
I thought liberals had called for civility? Well, I guess civility stops when conservatives want to kill American women.
Remember when President Obama referred to "tax cuts for the wealthy" as the Republicans' "Holy Grail"? Well, taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood appears to be the Democrats' Holy Grail (click here). As was reported earlier this week, as Obama and Boehner battled over a budget compromise, Obama drew a line in the sand. As Boehner pushed the president to defund Planned Parenthood, Obama finally snapped: "Nope. Zero. John, this is it."
The room fell silent. Obama had hoisted the Holy Grail.
You'd think from Democrats' reaction that taxpayer funding of the nation's largest abortion provider was Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, an inalienable right in the Declaration, the heart of Federalist 10, Washington's Farewell Address, the writings of Franklin and Adams and John Locke, the cornerstone of the New Deal and Great Society, a sacred political covenant with the American taxpayer, etched in cement at the base of the Washington Monument.
It's preposterous that America has run so far aground that one could even seriously entertain directing taxpayer dollars to America's largest abortion provider. The "right" to an abortion had to be read into the Constitution, at the total exclusion of sections guaranteeing a right to life, such as the 14th Amendment. Abortion was read into the "right to privacy," three words which themselves don't exist in the Constitution. Democrats should praise their stars that they have that much; even then, it isn't enough. Now they want those of us who are pro-life to fork over our dollars to an organization that exterminates more unborn babies (millions of them) than any other. It's downright obscene.
The Democratic Party has truly lost it.
It took Democrats a while to get there, but, finally, almost a century after the launching of the Bolshevik Revolution and Margaret Sanger's organization, they've finally arrived at where Sanger and the Soviets found common ground. They indeed act as if, as Sanger said about Stalin's Russia, "birth control… is part of the regular service of the government."
The saddest thing of all is that neither they, nor their supporters, nor America, seem to comprehend the outrageousness of their position.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include  The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released  Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

April 15, 2011

младенческая смертность по порядку рождения

редкие данные, возможные в тот непродолжительный период времени, когда можно было наблюдать женщин с 12ю рождениями :)
One of the clearest of these was that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. [Problems in Eugenics, London. 1918.] Taking 26,000 births from unse1ected' marriages, and omit ting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:
младенческая смертность по порядку рождения
источник: radamisto.blogspot.com

жена Рузвельта -- бисексуальна

В качестве пародии на этот сериал авторы "Saturday Night Live" предложили зрителю свой проект под названием "Рузвельты", якобы повествующий о семье президента Рузвельта. Хелен Миррен досталась роль Элеоноры Рузвельт, супруги президента, которая была бисексуалкой, что давно ни для кого не секрет. Поэтому в одном из эпизодов пародии Хелен поцеловалась с актрисой, изображающей Мэрилин Монро.

April 10, 2011

к свободе мог вывести только натурал ?

Депутат непальского парламента и гей-активист Сунил Бабу Пант (сунил таки бабу:) (Sunil Babu Pant) отреагировал на изданную биографию Махатма Ганди (Mahatma Gandhi), в которой утверждается, что политик был гомосексуален. Публицист Джозеф Леливелд (Joseph Lelyveld) в биографическом исследовании "Сильный духом: Махатма Ганди и его борьба за Индию" (Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India) пишет, что Ганди был влюблен в немецко-еврейского архитектора и культуриста Германа Калленбаха.
В связи с этим в некоторых индийских штатах было принято решение запретить книгу.

кстати, Гессен пишет о гомосексуальности Колмогорова и Александрова
"Какая разница, был Махатма натуралом, геем или бисексуалом? - задается вопросом Сунил Бабу Пант. - Ведь этот человек привел Индию к свободе… Он является примером для несметного количества людей во всем мире. Его принцип ненасильственной борьбы вдохновляет меня ежедневно".
Сунил Бабу Пант заявил, что Индия не должна запрещать эту биографию: "Надеюсь, что Индия и впредь будет оставаться оплотом демократии и сохранит свободу слова и печати".

April 9, 2011

1 из самых популярных контраргументов

ниже по тэгу Wells можно найти (моё:) разъяснение о спортивный признаках
Margaret Sanger was an angry, elitist woman who wanted to eradicate the lower classes, including those whose only sin was the color of their skin or their economic condition

+ коллекция линек
++ In defense of the most ridiculed and unappreciated being on the planet…THE WHITE MALE

April 8, 2011

другой путь



Who was Mary Ware Dennett, and why does Lynn Lederer, the director of professional and community programs at Middlesex County College, call her “a radical sex educator”?

Late last month, while we were still technically celebrating Women’s History Month, Dr. Lederer defended the dissertation she wrote for a doctoral degree in the social and philosophical foundations of education at Rutgers University. Its title: “The Dynamic Side of Life: The Emergence of Mary Coffin Ware Dennett as a Radical Sex Educator.”

I interviewed Dr. Lederer about Dennett, and it convinced me that Dennett deserves more recognition for her contributions to the sex education field. Her beliefs were certainly radical for her time and worthy of the word today.

Mary Ware Dennett (April 4, 1872–July 25, 1947) was raised in Boston and lived most of her life in New York City. Her ancestors included numerous social reformers, and Dennett learned the importance of social equality from them. One of her relatives was Lucretia Coffin Mott, an American Quaker abolitionist, social reformer, and proponent of women’s suffrage.

As a young adult, Dennett became involved in the “arts and crafts movement.” The movement had an anti-modern sentiment, concerned with the economic inequalities that industrialization exaggerated. It advocated “a return to the land” and the simpler things of life. Dennett’s accomplishments included founding the design school at Drexel University in Philadelphia and becoming a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. According to Dr. Lederer, she was “principled and pragmatic and didn’t care whose feathers she ruffled,” as she became an advocate for sex education, birth control, women’s suffrage, and other causes.

Personal events, family history, and the social and political context of the early twentieth century fostered Dennett’s interest in birth control and sex education. Married to Hartley Dennett, an architect, she suffered “three horrible pregnancies, one of which resulted in the death of the baby.”

Her doctor ordered her not to have any more children, yet he prescribed no method of prevention other than abstinence. Eventually, Dennett divorced her husband, who was having a romantic relationship right under her nose. In the early twentieth century, seeking a divorce was itself somewhat of “a scandal” and required a courageous spirit. Dennett became a single mother, raising two young sons in New York, where she worked for the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA).

Questions about sex from her 14-year-old son, Carleton, away at a small New England boarding school, started Dennett down the sex education road. She did not shy away from the questions and began to seek age-appropriate materials for him and her younger, 10-year-old son, Devon. She found most of the materials unsatisfactory and lacking in candor: They did not mention or describe the sex act itself.

Since Dennett believed that “sex is the very greatest physical and emotional pleasure there is in the world,” she confidently undertook the challenge of answering her son’s questions using her own research and discussions with doctors.

The result of her dedication to “truth-telling” was a 16-page manual that she wrote in 1915, The Sex Side of Life, an Explanation for Young People. It covered many topics forthrightly, including the “physiological, scientific, moral, and emotional aspects of sexuality.” Dennett used anatomically accurate words for male and female body parts and included pictures with the parts clearly labeled. She described the actual sex act and encouraged her sons to understand that sex should be for pleasure as well as reproduction. This was radical indeed when placed beside views of the Victorian era, which influenced sexual behavior when Dennett was growing up.

Dennett told her sons that she believed sex was part of a “special relationship” and counseled “against sex without love.” (Critics today might complain that Dennett’s manual did not mention gay and lesbian relationships.) To her credit, she discussed masturbation, although she hinted that her sons should not “do it too much.”

Ironically, given her own personal experience using abstinence as the only form of birth control, there is no mention at all of methods, which must have existed, crude as they might have been. Venereal diseases get only a brief mention.

What makes this manual truly radical is not only the scope of its information for young people, but also its tone. There is hardly a hint of adult or parental control or repression about young people’s sexuality and no emphasis on fear or shame as ways to control behavior. Rather, Dennett emphasizes a humanist, civil libertarian approach that engenders respect for young people’s rights to all the information they need to make a personal decision about sexuality, whether good or bad.

Although some might think these next lines from the manual quaint—even naïve, in today’s sexually saturated culture—they convey its spirit and tone. Dennett wrote to her sons: “When boys and girls get into their ‘teens,’ a side of them begins to wake up which has been asleep, or only partly developed ever since they were born, that is the sex side of them. It is the most wonderful and interesting part of growing up. This waking up is partly of the mind, partly of the body, and partly of the feelings or emotions.”

But her sons, their friends, other parents, and the medical profession itself did not find Dennett’s information and counsel quaint. Her manual created quite a buzz and was copied and passed along from family to family, colleague to colleague, and clergy to clergy. After it was published in its entirety—and received a glowing introduction in the highly regarded The Medical Review of Reviews in 1918—thousands of copies were distributed and sold (at $.25 a copy) to institutions and individuals worldwide. This demand revealed the intense need at the time for honest, medically accurate information about sexuality for young people.

But when sex education is involved, controversy is often not far behind. In 1928, Dennett was arrested for distributing copies of The Sex Side of Life through the U.S. mail and charged with promoting “obscenity” under the repressive Comstock laws. Her arrest became a “cause célèbre.” (The New York Times covered her trial.)

Dennett fought the charges, saying, “Talking about sex is not obscene.” She argued against the prevailing wisdom that talking about sex with young people encourages them to engage in it—an argument some still make today when arguing against comprehensive sex education. Rather, she maintained that sex education “empowers” young people, and every person “must have access to all the knowledge that is available to them” to make their own decisions.

Lederer’s dissertation details that a jury of 12 white men heard the case “and Mrs. Dennett was quickly convicted and fined $300, with a possible jail sentence of one year.” Dennett refused to pay the fine, explaining: “If I have corrupted the youth of America, a year in jail is not enough for me, and I will not pay the fine!” On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the conviction, finding that The Sex Side of Life hardly measured up to the definition of obscenity in the repressive statute.

There is no record that Mary Ware Dennett ever became more involved in sex education after scoring a victory for her manual. However, she was involved in the birth control movement, where she and the far more famous Margaret Sanger chose different paths in their attempts to gain access for women to these lifesaving devices.

Sanger convinced legislators to introduce “The Doctors-Only Bill,” to permit women to obtain birth control devices only from a member of the medical profession. Dennett—believing that women should be free to get birth control devices from multiple sources and that there should not be “a medical monopoly of knowledge and information”— searched for backers of the more liberal, far-seeing legislation known as the “Clean Bill.” Of the two women, Dennett’s approach was far more radical than Sanger’s, although it was the latter’s political effort that prevailed.

I asked Dr. Lederer what Dennett might think of the progress we’ve made to date with sex education in the U.S.

“The issues Dennett fought for 100 years ago are still being fought today, a century later. She would be saddened that we still have not attained her goal that every person has the right to knowledge and information about sexuality,” she said.

For Dr. Lederer, Dennett’s “unequivocal conviction that all members of a truly democratic society have the right to know is still radical today because [it implies that] with knowledge, ordinary people have the ability and the responsibility to chart their own course in life without control from those at the top of the social hierarchy.”

“Dennett was a true humanist, trusting in the ability of ordinary people,” Dr. Lederer added.

Surely, radical Mary Ware Dennett deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of sex education heroines and in women’s history.

интервьь Кац про Сэнгер


фабианское общество

The society was named after the Roman Dictator (?) Fabius Maximus who defeated Hannibal of Carthage in Italy during the Second Punic War in 218-202 BC and was know as the savior of Rome. The society was devoted to restoring the Renaissance ideas (most importantly humanism) and the promulgation this restoration throughout the rest of the world. The Fabian Socialists, as they were known, believed in imperialist foreign policy along with socialist governmental tenants like, a nationalized education system, universal healthcare, the nationalization of land, the abolition of hereditary peerages, and a minimum wage.

H. G. Wells was a member of the Fabian Society who actually left the society due to disagreements with other members on his more radical aspirations for the group.

H. G. Wells believed in the Eugenics as part of his Utopian ideals. In his discussion about a paper written by Francis Galton, who was one of the founders of eugenics, he stated “I believe .. It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.”
точго такую же мысль вычитал как-то давно в ж. ЗнаниеСила, автор = Ефимов, кажется из Новосибирска, Ефимов - тоже попа мяти. Мысль ясна и практически доказана:
  • селекция лучших -- мафиозный путь
  • предложенное Уэлсом -- спортивный принцип, так действуют чемпионаты с выбываением
H. G. Wells would also deal with controversy as no coincidence with the sexual affair with Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger, who created “Planned Parenthood”, was a huge supporter of Eugenics. She once wrote in a letter to Clarence Gamble this disturbing statement:

The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want 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.” -Margaret Sanger, letter to Clarence Gamble, Dec. 10,1939. – Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College.

She also wrote this in the Birth Control Review:

 “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12)









недобровольная стерилизация в Пуэрто Рико

READ...Female Sterilization in Puerto Rico

Female Sterilization in Puerto Rico

Sara Hoerlein

There are a number of examples in post Civil War America of eugenic programs but none as effective and widespread as the mass female sterilization in Puerto Rico. Beginning in the years following WW I, a program was initiated by the United States government, the medical community and the local government of Puerto Rico, to name a few, which resulted in the unprecedented sterilization of 1/3 of the female population by 1965, and the continued use of sterilization on a broad scale by Puerto Rican women as a form of birth control (Presser 1980).

The island of Puerto Rico is over 80% Catholic and providing services to prevent pregnancy was a felony until the 1930’s. The historic and social conditions -- medical, legal, and political -- that were conducive to this mass sterilization movement are important and of interest. For decades the United States has blamed overpopulation for economic problems, unemployment, and poverty in Puerto Rico, while ignoring the fact that they (the U.S.) have played an enormous role in generating and solidifying these conditions (Michaelson 1981). As a result, non-official programs with the intent of distributing birth control information and educating specifically poor families about the need for such practices were implemented in the 1920’s (Presser 1973). Incredibly, as overpopulation was being blamed for economic crisis in the 1920’s, "less than 2% of the population owned 80% of the land" (Hartmann 1995 p.247). Strong opposition from the Catholic Church, unfavorable legal status of birth control, a disinterested public, and insufficient federal funding from the U.S., prevented these early programs from becoming successful.

In 1937, 23 birth control clinics were opened by a private organization and a bill was signed that made it no longer a felony to advertise contraceptives or provide services to prevent pregnancy (Presser 1973). Another bill was signed authorizing the "Commissioner of Health in Puerto Rico to regulate the teaching and dissemination of eugenic principles, including contraception, to health centers and maternal hospitals" which was followed by the opening of 160 birth control clinics, private and public (Presser 1973 p.25). Then came law #136, passed by the U.S. government, which legalized sterilization for other than strictly medical reasons (Garcia 1985). Underlying the legal jargon was the advocacy of weeding out the "unfit". It was then that sterilization was introduced to Puerto Rican women by physicians as a means of birth control. By 1939 the government was actively supporting birth control clinics and the distribution of contraceptives (Presser 1973). This was timely and convenient for the recent arrivals of U.S. manufacturing companies that needed cheap labor, i.e. women who could be "freed" from childcare for employment (Hartmann 1995).

Read the full report…

ещё про Ганди

The ‘Great Soul’ Meets the Greatest Movie Review Ever

Clarice, that article on Gandhi brings to mind the greatest movie “review” ever written — Richard Grenier’s magnum opus “The Gandhi Nobody Knows” essay from 1983. This is merely a tiny sample:

On my second viewing of ‘Gandhi,’ this time at a public showing at the end of the Christmas season, I happened to leave the theater behind three teenage girls, apparently from one of Manhattan’s fashionable private schools. “Gandhi was pretty much an FDR,” one opined, astonishing me almost as much by her breezy use of initials to invoke a President who died almost a quarter-century before her birth as by the stupefying nature of the comparison. “But he was a religious figure, too,” corrected one of her friends, adding somewhat smugly, “It’s not in our historical tradition to honor spiritual leaders.” Since her schoolteachers had clearly not led her to consider Jonathan Edwards and Roger Williams as spiritual leaders, let alone Joseph Smith and William Jennings Bryan, the intimation seemed to be that we are a society with poorer spiritual values than, let’s say, India. There can be no question, in any event, that the girls felt they had just been shown the historical Gandhi–an attitude shared by Ralph Nader, who at last account had seen the film three times. Nader has conceived the most extraordinary notion that Gandhi’s symbolic flouting of the British salt tax was a “consumer issue” which he later expanded into the wider one of Indian independence. A modern parallel to Gandhi’s program of home-spinning and home-weaving, another “consumer issue” says Nader, might be the use of solar energy to free us from the “giant multinational oil corporations.”
AS IT happens, the government of India openly admits to having provided one-third of the financing of ‘Gandhi’ out of state funds, straight out of the national treasury–and after close study of the finished product I would not be a bit surprised to hear that it was 100 percent. If Pandit Nehru is portrayed flatteringly in the film, one must remember that Nehru himself took part in the initial story conferences (he originally wanted Gandhi to be played by Alec Guinness) and that his daughter Indira Gandhi is, after all, Prime Minister of India (though no relation to Mohandas Gandhi). The screenplay was checked and rechecked by Indian officials at every stage, often by the Prime Minister herself, with close consultations on plot and even casting. If the movie contains a particularly poisonous portrait of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, the Indian reply, I suppose, would be that if the Pakistanis want an attractive portrayal of Jinnah let them pay for their own movie. A friend of mine, highly sophisticated in political matters but innocent about film-making, declared that ‘Gandhi’ should be preceded by the legend: *The following film is a paid political advertisement by the government of India.*
“Gandhi”, then, is a large, pious, historical morality tale centered on a saintly, sanitized Mahatma Gandhi cleansed of anything too embarrassingly Hindu (the word “caste” is not mentioned from one end of the film to the other) and, indeed, of most of the rest of Gandhi’s life, much of which would drastically diminish his saintliness in Western eyes. There is little to indicate that the India of today has followed Gandhi’s precepts in almost nothing. There is little, in fact, to indicate that India is even India. The spectator realizes the scene is the Indian subcontinent because there are thousands of extras dressed in dhotis and saris. The characters go about talking in these quaint Peter Sellers accents. We have occasional shots of India’s holy poverty, holy hovels, some landscapes, many of them photographed quite beautifully, for those who like travelogues. We have a character called Lord Mountbatten (India’s last Viceroy); a composite American journalist (assembled >from Vincent Sheehan, William L. Shirer, Louis Fischer, and straight fiction); a character called simply “Viceroy” (presumably another composite); an assemblage of Gandhi’s Indian followers under the name of one of them (Patel); and of course Nehru. I sorely missed the fabulous Annie Besant, that English clergyman’s wife, turned atheist, turned Theosophist, turned Indian nationalist, who actually became president of the Indian National Congress and had a terrific falling out with Gandhi, becoming his fierce opponent. And if the producers felt they had to work in a cameo role for an American star to add to the film’s appeal in the United States, it is positively embarrassing that they should have brought in the photographer Margaret Bourke-White, a person of no importance whatever in Gandhi’s life and a role Candice Bergen plays with a repellant unctuousness. If the film-makers had been interested in drama and not hagiography, it is hard to see how they could have resisted the awesome confrontation between Gandhi and, yes, Margaret Sanger. For the two did meet. Now *there* was a meeting of East and West, and *may the better person win!* (She did. Margaret Sanger argued her views on birth control with such vigor that Gandhi had a nervous breakdown.)

Oh to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting of the minds…

месячник женсовета

Pioneer women, suffragettes, female writers and artists, as well as Margaret Sanger, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mary McLeod Bethune, Rosa Parks, and Nancy Kassebaum Baker were mentioned as women who have made significant contributions in history.

Read more: Abilene Reflector-Chronicle - History and strength celebrated in program marking Women’s History Month

April 4, 2011

Ганди -- гей ?

Ганди ?Один из руководителей и идеологов движения за независимость Индии от Великобритании Махатма Ганди (Mahatma Gandhi) был по-настоящему влюблен только в своего друга, немецкого архитектора Германа Калленбаха (Hermann Kallenbach), пишет публицист Джозеф Леливелд (Joseph Lelyveld) в биографическом исследовании "Сильный духом: Махатма Ганди и его борьба за Индию" (Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India). Об этом пишет The Wall Street Journal.

Леливелд пишет, лишь в редких случаях Ганди "наслаждался" обществом дам, отдавая предпочтение любви всей его жизни - немецко-еврейскому архитектору и культуристу Герману Калленбаху, ради которого в 1908 году Ганди оставил жену. "Лишь ваш портрет стоит на каминном столике в спальне, - писал Махатма Герману. - Напротив моей кровати". Также публицист замечает, что часто в переписке двух мужчин Ганди упоминает о вате и вазелине, из чего Леливелд делает вывод, что Ганди делал себе клизмы во время визитов Калленбаха, хотя, возможно, этому существуют и другие объяснения.

"Вы без остатка овладели моим телом, - сказано в другом письме Ганди Калленбаху. - Это в полном смысле слова зависимость". В переписке Ганди называет себя "Верхней палатой", а Калленбаха - "Нижней" и простит "Нижнюю палату" не "смотреть с вожделением на женщин". Когда двое клянутся друг другу "сильно любить... может, как они надеются, возникнуть любовь, которую мир еще не видывал".

Мужчины расстались, когда Ганди вернулся в 1914 году в Индию [в возрасте 45]. Калленбах не мог получить разрешение на въезд в Индию во время Первой мировой войны, так как у него было немецкое гражданство. Хотя Ганди не переставал думать о нем. В 1933 году он написал: "Вы всегда перед моим мысленным взором".

ист = гей.ру