From Women and the New Race, Article Review Example

The 1920 essay by Margaret Sanger, “From Women and the New Race,” proposes the means of birth control for women.  This is not an irrational or unsubstantiated concept, to say the least, yet the essay poses many difficulties in its logic which leads up to its recommendation.  There are a significant number of stereotypes that are set forth and other rather surprising claims that are made.  Offering the means of birth control for women is nothing that is worthy of question, especially in today’s society, yet the argument if filled with a number of claims and logic that do not bode well.

Stereotypes

One clear sign of the age of this essay is seen in the number of stereotypes that are made.  Today women are not subject to the same social norms as they were in the 1920’s.  However, this fact relates other stark stereotypes that are used by Sanger to lead her argument for the right to use birth control.

Reactionaries

Sanger begins her essay by provoking the reader with some gross stereotypes of militaristic leaders.  Dubbed as “reactionaries,” these figures are made to be some sort of undignified patriotic leaders, who are seeking expansion regardless of the means or causes.  She then connects it to the reasoning leading up to war, even citing it as against “some nation supposed to be less well prepared than the aggressor.”

These stereotypes are however very misleading.  Rather than looking at these militaristic leaders as those who clamor for power and prestige, or other politically motivated factors as we can see throughout history, Sanger gives expansions as some sort of ultimate desire.  This confusing notion finds no truth, however, as it lacks logic to associate militaristic leaders to those who have expansion in the forefront of their reign.

The connecting point of the reactionary to expansion and inevitable war is also quite misleading.  Of course, these types of leaders are sometimes more than willing to go to war, as this is linked to the very meaning of “militaristic.”  However, in rejecting expansion as the chief driving force, Sanger also provides the reader with another stereotypical characteristic that finds no basis.  This is provided by Sanger’s previous quote regarding a nation that is weaker.  This simplistic notion is devoid of proper reasoning, as we cannot simply call the target of these “reactionaries” as a target that is weaker.  Politics and factors leading up to war are not this simple.  These militaristic leaders are not single-minded leaders who hope to prey on smaller nations.  There are more complicated political factors, and surely these leaders are aware of stronger nations who will come to aid these nations, just as we see in World War I, where Sanger is found in her references to the war.

Government Leaders and the Press

As Sanger introduces her essay, she makes a potent round of further stereotypes.  This time, she equivocates diplomats to those who conceal facts, politicians as those who denounce other politicians, and the press and similar agencies as those who distort facts and conceal the truth.  This round of stereotypes is lacking a great deal of logic, as they seek to win those in society to like to believe these types of theories.

These stereotypes are perhaps the most damaging to Sanger’s argument.  It is difficult to give Sanger’s argument a logical basis in light of these associations that Sanger gives.  These stereotypes are self-evident in their flaws, as they describe opinions of those who are ignorant of politics and the media.

War of Population

The equivocation of war to those motivated solely by population fills Sanger’s argument for birth control.  This unfortunate claim provides an extreme association to the ultimate link of Sanger’s argument.  A war is not driven solely by population, or even a major cause.

Sanger believes that wars are driven by population.  Even adding to the unfortunate stereotypes as political leaders calling their people to breed, she links a growing population to a population that serves its ruler in wars.  Even citing high birth rate countries for a statistical basis, Sanger brings a number of illogical details to the mix.

Wars are not driven solely by a growing population.  Even looking at World War I, it was not due to the high birth rate countries looking to use their citizens for war.  Imperialism, a web of alliances, an arms race, and dominance of resources and other politically-motivated factors can be seen as the primary causes for the first major war.  These numerous factors cannot be labeled by “population” as the chief cause for this war. In fact, it is not even a major cause for World War I.

Sanger’s recommendation for birth control finalizes the illogical basis of her argument. While reasonable in itself, Sanger uses birth control as the means by which women can prevent war.  Even going as far to labeling man (gender) as a negative role, she calls women to react passionately against these driving desires to war with the role of birth control, even victimizing women.  Hence the final reasoning calls women to end this so-called struggle in war by lessening the population, or, as she sees it, war and deaths will continue.