Group 1: Women and Eugenics

(taken from http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Victorians/swimearlyvics400new.jpg)

Authored by: Ryne J. Cantwell and Kali A. Enyeart

Published: 2007

For many, eugenics, “the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding,” is a science of evil, led by racists and fueled by discrimination (McPhail). However, when this science is placed within the contexts of its time, it proves to be a significant catalyst for the nineteenth-century women’s movement, a time when women began to break away from the conventional Victorian ideals of a woman and redefine themselves through a new and modern perspective. By providing women with ideological support to strengthen their desires, supplying them with empowering opportunities to improve themselves, and playing an important role in the Birth-Control Movement, eugenics significantly helped women not only further their movement, but also free themselves from the confines of the Victorian era’s repressive expectations of a woman and her roles.

What is Eugenics

-its dark side

Eugenics: A Catalyst for the Social Uprising and Sexual Liberation of Victorian Women

The Changing Role of a Woman During the Victorian Era

(taken from http://www.antiquebottles.com/rl/tc/DiamondWomen.jpg)

During the Victorian Era, the role of a woman was one of powerlessness and confinement. Women were considered inferior to men and were expected to accept their subordinate places to men in the sexual hierarchy.

From birth, women were taught to be passive and submissive. They were taught to obey their fathers and to engage themselves solely in activities that made them more attractive marriage candidates. As Betty Friedan reveals in The Feminine Mystique, because many parents and a number of educators felt that “girls could not use as housewives” the education they would receive from formal schooling, many girls were not enrolled in school (23). Thus, during this time, few women received formal educations.

In addition to education, women were also discouraged from entering the public sphere. Victorian society defined a woman’s role as one that revolved around the domestic sphere of the home and family. As a result, Victorian women seldom went out by themselves and rarely sought employment outside of the home. Yet, as the Victorian Era progressed, women became more and more anxious to break free from these conventional ideals. Specifically, women yearned to better themselves both academically and financially as well as gain entrance into the public sphere.

Interestingly, through eugenics, many women found the ideological support necessary to make this transition.

Eugenics Gives Women the Ideological Support They Need

(taken from http://www.blonnet.com/life/2004/02/09/images/2004020900190401.jpg)

1. Education

During this time, many eugenicists argued for the education of women. They felt that, in order to create a eugenically sound society, women must receive a formal education. For instance, in a speech, entitled “The Regeneration of Society,” Lillian Harman points out that many eugenicists felt that if “a girl were brought up with any rational knowledge of herself and of the pains and perils as well as the pleasures of maternity, the dangers of indiscriminate procreation in her case would be reduced to a minimum.” Similarly, Helen Gardener notes in her work, Pulpit, Pew, and Cradle, that many eugenicists claimed that as “no man c[ould] give…brains to his children if their mother is the victim of superstition and priestcraft,” practices common to uneducated women (2).

2. Freeing Women from the Confines of Motherhood

For centuries, motherhood has been regarded as a burden to women. It has prevented women from attaining an education as well as seeking a job outside the home. However, through eugenics, women found ideological support to overcome this burden. As Linda Gordon notes in her work, The Moral Property of Women, eugenicists encouraged women to make motherhood voluntary. Citing Moses Harman, a leading early eugenist, Gordon reveals that many eugenists tried to persuade women to decrease the number of births because it decreased the number of degenerate offspring (81). Though their purpose was somewhat self-serving, by encouraging fewer births, eugenists indirectly opened the door for women to pursue other avenues. Without having to care for many children, for instance, women would have more time on their hands to engage in other activities, including education and work.

3. Power, Equality, and Freedom

Eugenics also indirectly promoted women’s attainment of power and equality. For instance, by encouraging fewer births, eugenics encouraged women to take control over their sex lives. In his work, In the Name of Eugenics, Daniel J. Kevles writes: “[Eugenics] encouraged women to take greater control over their…sex and, in consequence, over the frequency with which they would bear children….[This] would promote the eugenic interest of the race” (65). By placing the sexual control in their hands, women became the decisions makers and, therefore, attained powers over their male counterparts. Thus, through this ideology, women began to escape the state of powerlessness that many women experienced in their patriarchal societies.

Similarly, many eugenicists also stressed the importance of gender equality. As Kevles further reveals, Karl Pearson, one of the founders of eugenics, was highly concerned with women’s unequal status. Inspired by his own mother’s misery, Kevles states that Pearson advocated not only for the improvement of women’s status, but also for their freedom from the repressive hierarchy implemented by male-dominated societies. In order to reach out to women, Pearson founded the Men and Women’s Club in 1885. Here the club discussed a range of topics, including women’s economic and intellectual opportunities (24).

Eugenics Provides Women with Empowering Opportunities

(taken from http://www.victoriaspast.com/VictorianGentlemen/dadsdesk.html)

1. Employment

Through eugenics, women were provided with working opportunities that brought them out of the house and into public worlds “from which they were otherwise largely barred” (Gordon 71; Kevles 64). For instance, Karl Pearson, Galton’s “principal successor in eugenics,” brought women into the world of science. Galton hired many women to work in Biometric Laboratory, the place were the statistical techniques for dealing with the data were developed (21, 39). Here, women were able to expand their knowledge scientifically while simultaneously supporting themselves financially by earning a steady income. Additionally, at Biometric Laboratory, women maintained a status equal to that of a man: “Pearson deemed the work of the women ‘equal at the very least to that of men,’ and…treated them as professional equals in rank, publication credit, and position in the staff hierarchy” (39). Although some may consider Pearson an outlier, for Pearson’s sensitivity to women in the workplace was not a very wide-spread ideal amongst eugenicists at the time, it is important to note that other eugenicists, including the chauvinistic Francis Galton, also employed women.

2. Access into Male-Dominated Spheres

Galton’s Eugenics Record Office welcomed women into predominately male-dominated spheres: the occupational, the public, and the scientific spheres. At the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), women were given jobs ranging from mere secretarial duties to scientific field-workers. Furthermore, since such work was outside rather than inside the home, these opportunities also gave women access to the public sphere.

Like work, Karl Pearson's Men's and Women's Club also helped women integrate into the public sphere. Inspired by his mother’s misery, for his mother possessed an unhappy marriage with no means of escape, Pearson took a keen interest in “the woman question.” Believing that a woman’s freedom lay within economic independence via socialism, Pearson created this club to learn more about as well as reach out to the opposite sex.

3. "Male" Characteristics

Through such jobs, women began to obtain qualities previously forbidden to them. For instance, such work enabled women to attain mobility. For years, Victorian women were forced to remain within the walls of their home. In fact, women usually only entered the public sphere via a male figure: they accompanied either their father or their husband on outings. However, with a career in eugenics, women were freely able to travel. As Amy Sue Bix notes in "Experiences and Voices of Eugenics Field-Workers: 'Women's Work' in Biology ," female ERO field workers were required to “trave[l] across [the] country and wor[k] in hospitals and other institutions, gathering and classifying data on physical, mental and other social traits in individuals, families, and locales” (Bix 626).

Similarly, eugenic work also enabled women to hone basic skills that could help them advance in a career later on in life. Bix further points out that after employment at the ERO, “a number of women continued careers, either in eugenics (working in private or state agencies and institutions) or in teaching, social work, graduate studies, and other directions” (636).

As a result of such employment, women began to take a stance in their patriarchal societies. For instance, female trainees of the ERO entering the workforce found themselves to be “proportionately about as successful as male ERO graduates in finding initial jobs” (634).

Eugenics and the Birth Control Movement

(taken from http://www.askpat.colostate.edu/Images/birthcontrolpill.jpg)

Eugenics Ideologies Align with Those of the Birth Control Movement

Like Pearson, other eugenicists were concerned with sexuality, specifically in regard to reproductive control. In particular, eugenicists desired to strengthen the native stock of Americans…by limiting ‘deviant’ populations and reducing the…social ills often associated with ‘mental idiocy’” (Critchlow 1). However, due to society’s loosening of sexual standards, eugenicists realized that a method must be devised that not only allowed “individuals…[to] be…free to exercise sexual agency” but also enabled procreation to be controlled (Kline 49). As a result, eugenicists began to explore the idea of separating sexual satisfaction from procreation. Seeing that women, in regard to sex, were easier to control than men, many eugenicists began to heavily support the sexual liberation of women.

As Donald T. Critchlow reveals in his piece, “Birth Control, Population Control, and Family Planning: An Overview,” as eugenicists began to explore the ideal of the sexual liberation of women, “the eugenics movement and the women’s movement became closely associated” (5). For instance, many feminists found the ideologies of eugenics to be a source of arguments for “strengthening the place of women in a male-dominated society,” specifically in regard to sexual liberation (5). As Daniel Kevles reveals in his work, In the Name of Eugenics, eugenicists began to heavily encourage and promote the idea of sexually liberating women from the conventional Victorian ideals on sexuality. He states: “[Eugenics]…encouraged women to take greater control over their marital sex and, in consequence, over the frequency with which they would bear children. Honoring motherhood, the movement aimed to make motherhood voluntary, an achievement that it claimed would…benefit women” (Kevles 65). Therefore, in order to help women take greater control over their sex lives, many eugenicists began to advocate the use of birth control. Though not all eugenicists agreed with this conviction, for in reality, eugenicists overall were fervently divided on the issue, such convictions managed to spark the interest of the early advocates of birth control. As birth controllers began to take greater and greater interest in eugenics, they began to see the unquestionable parallels that existed between this eugenics movement and their own.

The Benefits of Such an Alignment

As Wendy Kline notes in her work, Building a Better Race, “the ideas and goals of the birth-control and eugenics movements overlapped considerably” (64). For instance, both movements were heavily concerned not only with reproductive control, but also sexual education. However, what interested birth controllers most and, as a result, led “most…[to] suppor[t] eugenic goals,” were the benefits that the birth-control movement could reap from its association with eugenics (64). First, by “len[ding] scientific credibility to the separation of sex from procreation,” eugenics enabled the birth-control movement to become “a modernizing force in reproductive politics” (64). Second, “eugenics provided birth controllers with a scientific language that ‘helped dissociate birth control from sexual controversy’” (64). And third, “placed within a eugenic framework, birth control became a key component of racial progress,” an idea at the time that was making significant legal headway (64).

For example, in the legendary case of Buck v. Bell, eugenicists, frustrated with a period of legal deadlock involving sterilization laws, were eager to truly put the laws to the test and find out if their beliefs could be legalized. Therefore, in 1924, eugenicists turned to Carrie Buck, a teenage girl who recently gave birth to a child out of wedlock. Both Carrie and her mother were feebleminded, thus, if it could be proved that Carrie’s child, Vivian, was also feebleminded, “Carrie would be a perfect subject [to] test…[a] Virginia sterilization statute” (Kevles 110). However, no evidence existed that proved Vivian to be feebleminded. Therefore, officials relied on the depositions of three people: Harry Laughlin, who, without seeing the Bucks, rendered Carrie’s feeblemindedness hereditary, a Red Cross worker, who “testified that there was ‘a look’ about Vivian (who at the time…was seven months old) [that] ‘was not quite normal,’” and Arthur Estabrook, who, through testing, concluded Vivian was below average for a child her age (110). Thanks to such evidence, the statute was upheld with the “decision declar[ing] that sterilization on eugenic grounds was within the police power of the state, that it provided due process of law, and that it did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment” (111).

As a result, by the end of the 1920s sterilization laws existed in 24 states. Buck v. Bell was clearly not the most moral and just case to appear on the docket of the Supreme Court, but the fact that eugenicists were able to have such laws passed with such little evidence served as proof to birth controllers that the eugenics movement possessed true legal and political power. As Johanna Schoen reveals in her work, Choice and Coercion, during the 1910s and 1920s, eugenicists held the political tools and power to shape legislation (81). Thus, to many birth controllers, an alliance with the eugenics movement was not only seen as an enticing social coalition, but also a strategic move that could truly further their own cause.

American Birth-Control Movement and Eugenics

In order to gain the support of eugenicists, birth controllers not only began to heavily support eugenic goals, but also integrated eugenic language and reasoning in their campaign” (Kline 64).

Margaret Sanger

(taken from http://www.nndb.com/people/896/000031803/)

In particular, Margaret Sanger, the leading crusader in the American birth-control campaign, made sure that eugenics was a prevailing theme in the birth-control movement. Ironically, in addition to her reproductive beliefs, Sanger herself also was an avid supporter of eugenic thought: “Sanger did believe that people with severe mental retardation…should not bear children. She defined borderline cases as those with a mental age of around eight. She believed people with severe retardation were a social burden and a danger and that they lowered the overall intelligence of the human race by continuing to reproduce. She also supported the idea that unrestrained childbearing in large families increased the possibility of raising children of lower intelligence” (Valenza 45).

Therefore, as an enthusiastic supporter of such thought, Sanger willingly used her limelight via the birth-control movement not only to help strengthen the eugenics movement itself, but also to help draw in more eugenic support towards birth control. For instance, “in 1950 [Sanger] praised the 27 states where ‘legislators have been far sighted and fearless enough to provide the cost of sterilization at Government expense in such cases where there is a hereditary disease’” (Dowbiggin 238-9). In addition, Sanger also published “frequent contributions from the leaders of eugenics” in her magazine, the Birth Control Review (Gordon 76). For example, Guy Irving Burch, “a director of the American Eugenics Society,” regularly contributed his eugenic writings to the magazine in order to further “’prevent the American people from being replaced by alien or Negro stock, whether it be by immigration or by overly high birth rates among others in this country’” (77). In addition, Sanger’s magazine also published articles that specifically were aimed to promote both eugenic ideologies and practices. For example, in 1920-21, Sanger’s magazine “featured a long series of articles by Dr. Warren Thompson on ‘Race Suicide,’” and then, in September 1923, the magazine “editorialized in favor of immigration restriction as something ‘reasonable and eugenic’” (76). Also, in 1923, the Birth Control Review “published a study on ‘The Cost to the State of the Socially Unfit’” (76). Interestingly though, this was not the only occasion on which Sanger publicly promoted and rallied for eugenics.

In 1953 Sanger publicly announced that “’eugenic principles…[were]…sound in constructing a decent civilization,” relaying the ideal that the ideals and goals of eugenics were both sensible and credible (Dowbiggin 239). Later, Sanger lent even more credibility to eugenic practices when, as Ian Dowbiggin notes in his piece, “’A Rational Coalition’: Euthanasia, Eugenics, and British Control in America, 1940-1970,” Sanger argued that “’sterilization,’…is the best contraceptive method ‘in cases where the person’s mentality is not adequate for the usual techniques necessary in regular birth-control methods,’” and, thus, popularized the slogan “’more children from the fit, less from the unfit’” (257; Kline 2). Furthermore, in 1930, by relaying her own personal “understanding of the relationship between eugenics and her birth-control work,” Sanger also publicly promoted the alliance of the eugenics and birth-control movements (Gordon 78). She states: “eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands. It could not stand against the furious winds of economic pressure which had buffeted into partial or total helplessness a tremendous proportion of the human race. The eugenicists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought…to stop the multiplication of the unfit” (78).

Other Notable Supporters of both the Birth-Control Movement and Eugenics

Yet, despite Sanger and other birth controllers’ efforts, the whole-hearted support of eugenics was not entirely won. Worldwide, skeptical eugenicists were mainly concerned with the question of whether the “’practice of birth control…[would have] a harmful or favorable effect upon the race” (65).

Surprisingly, this concern actually worked towards the birth controllers’ advantage. As Roswell Johnson, a future president of the American Eugenics Society, revealed, such a concern was “one of the main reasons why [he had] been active in the birth-control movement” (65). Unsurprisingly, Johnson was not alone. In fact, as eugenics’ involvement with the birth-control movement became more widespread and popularized, many eugenicists became active in eugenics’ participation with the birth- control crusade in order “to try to help keep this movement as eugenic as possible” (65).

Charles Davenport

(taken from http://www.museumofdisability.org/html/exhibits/society/timeline_eugenics.html)

However, as the birth-control movement gained popularity, many eugenicists, including Charles Davenport, the director of the Eugenics Record Office and also a former stringent anti-birth control eugenicist, realized that in order to ensure the safety of eugenics, their support in eugenics’ affiliation was greatly needed. Davenport states: “’[It is] better to face this danger and fight it by instruction…rather than to rely upon the futile hope that ignorance will retard the self sterilization of those lines that possess the greatest natural capacity’” (65-6). As a result of this realization, the birth-control debate began to gain immense support from eugenicists, both pro and anti-birth control, worldwide. However, in order to gain complete support and solidify eugenics’ endorsement of birth control, birth controllers needed to find a crusader, like Sanger, whose interest “lay closer to” those of the eugenicists (66). Dr. Robert Latou Dickinson was their answer.

Dr. Robert Latou Dickinson

Dickinson, an esteemed gynecologist, avid eugenicist, and enthusiastic birth-control advocate, is said to have “played a central role in bridging the ideological gap among…eugenicists…and birth controllers” (66). For eugenicists, what made Dickinson most appealing was his passion for the science. Through his intense interest in eugenics, in 1928, Dickinson began to enthusiastically study female sterilization. After years of work, the fruits of his labor were presented in “an influential paper at the American Medical Association (AMA),” entitled “Sterilization without Unsexing: A Surgical Review” (67). While his “paper honored California as the only state [at the time] to make widespread use of its eugenic-sterilization law,” it also highlighted the need for “preventing procreation selectively in order to improve the race” (67). Clearly, none of this really sparked the interest of birth controllers. In fact, what was most enticing to birth controllers was Dickinson’s ability “to convince medical professionals that controlling conception was not only relevant to organized medicine but also of essential importance” (67), ironically, through the use of his knowledge of eugenics.

To birth-control advocates worldwide, Dickinson was a much-needed component in the success of their movement. Not only did he help rally the support of eugenicists, but he also helped to lobby for the promotion of contraceptives and sex education. For example, in a letter, dated in 1935, to Arthur Packard of the Rockefeller Foundation, Dickinson publicly illuminates the need for both contraceptive and sex education. He states: “If at this time governments were to offer this relief [birth control] to millions of families on relief, or to the swarming population of Oriental countries, medical science and public health would be in doubt on what to advise most of these people” (Critchlow 7).

As a result, Dickinson lobbied hard to “secure a resolution endorsing contraception as a legitimate medical service that ought to be included in the medical school curriculum” (Reed 33). His efforts for this matter were officially successful in 1937. In addition, Dickinson also delighted many birth-control advocates when he “joined with Margaret Sanger in establishing the institutional framework for the distribution and testing of contraceptives” (Schoen 29). However, what truly made Dickinson the perfect link between the eugenics and birth-control movements was not only his belief that birth control, sexual adjustment, and eugenic sterilization were inseparable issues, but how this belief finally set the stage to make the women’s movement acceptable to the general public as well.

Specifically, Dickinson was one of the “largest single causative factor[s]” that enabled “eugenic ideas [to contribute]…to the general conservative mood that took over the birth-control movement,” making it socially acceptable (Gordon 79). Dickinson felt that no overwhelming feature or distinctive characteristic lay within birth control, sexual adjustment, and eugenic sterilization that made either of the three a separable issue. In fact, he considered all three part of the same package (Kline 66). He states: “The study of control of conception cannot be dissociated from consideration of sterility, sterilization, and an attempt at definition of the normal in sex life” (66). Therefore, by lumping all of these aspects together, Dickinson not only strengthened the alliance between eugenicists and birth controllers alike, but made the birth-control movement acceptable to the public as well. In fact, by advertising the three ideologies as “part of a broad program of ‘family regulation in the interests of the parents, the offspring, and the race,’” Dickinson was able to undermine public morale and make “regulating conception…socially essential” (66). As a result, “state public health programs and federal relief agencies became actively involved in the distribution of contraception” (Schoen 22). Thus, as legislators nationwide began to find the idea of contraception socially acceptable and, like many eugenicists, see birth control as an economically beneficial cause, “a patchwork of services emerged to address the contraceptive needs of…women” as professed by Sanger and other birth-control advocates (22). Therefore, for the first time in history, women were not only sexually liberated, but also officially beginning to free themselves from and no longer define themselves by the repressive ideals for women that were professed by the Victorian society.