Be not ashamed, women,
your privilege encloses the rest,
and is the exit of the rest,
You are the gates of the body,
and you are the gates of the soul.
This book aims to be neither the first word on
the tangled problems of human society to-day, nor the last. My aim has been to emphasize,
by the use of concrete and challenging examples and neglected facts, the need of
a new approach to individual and social problems. Its central challenge is that
civilization, in any true sense of the word, is based upon the control and guidance
of the great natural instinct of Sex. Mastery of this force is possible only through
the instrument of Birth Control.
It may be objected that in the following pages
I have rushed in where academic scholars have feared to tread, and that as an active
propagandist I am lacking in the scholarship and documentary preparation to undertake
such a stupendous task. My only defense is that, from my point of view at least,
too many are already studying and investigating social problems from without, with
a sort of Olympian detachment. And on the other hand, too few of those who are engaged
in this endless war for human betterment have found the time to give to the world
those truths not always hidden but practically unquarried, which may be secured
only after years of active service.
Of late, we have been treated to accounts written
by well-meaning ladies and gentlemen who have assumed clever disguises and have
gone out to work--for a week or a month--among the proletariat. But can we thus
learn anything new of the fundamental problems of working men, working women, working
children? Something, perhaps, but not those great central problems of Hunger and
Sex. We have been told that only those who themselves have suffered the pangs of
starvation can truly understand Hunger. You might come into the closest contact
with a starving man; yet, if you were yourself well-fed, no amount of sympathy could
give you actual insight into the psychology of his suffering. This suggests an objective
and a subjective approach to all social problems. Whatever the weakness of the subjective
(or, if you prefer, the feminine) approach, it has at least the virtue that its
conclusions are tested by experience. Observation of facts about you, intimate subjective
reaction to such facts, generate in your mind certain fundamental convictions,--truths
you can ignore no more than you can ignore such truths as come as the fruit of bitter
but valuable personal experience.
Regarding myself, I may say that my experience
in the course of the past twelve or fifteen years has been of a type to force upon
me certain convictions that demand expression. For years I had believed that the
solution of all our troubles was to be found in well-defined programmes of political
and legislative action. At first, I concentrated my whole attention upon these,
only to discover that politicians and law-makers are just as confused and as much
at a loss in solving fundamental problems as anyone else. And I am speaking here
not so much of the corrupt and ignorant politician as of those idealists and reformers
who think that by the ballot society may be led to an earthly paradise. They may
honestly desire and intend to do great things. They may positively glow--before
election--with enthusiasm at the prospect they imagine political victory may open
to them. Time after time, I was struck by the change in their attitude after the
briefest enjoyment of this illusory power. Men are elected during some wave of reform,
let us say, elected to legislate into practical working existence some great ideal.
They want to do big things; but a short time in office is enough to show the political
idealist that he can accomplish nothing, that his reform must be debased and dragged
into the dust, so that even if it becomes enacted, it may be not merely of no benefit,
but a positive evil. It is scarcely necessary to emphasize this point. It is an
accepted commonplace of American politics. So much of life, so large a part of all
our social problems, moreover, remains untouched by political and legislative action.
This is an old truth too often ignored by those who plan political campaigns upon
the most superficial knowledge of human nature.
My own eyes were opened to the limitations of political
action when, as an organizer for a political group in New York, I attended by chance
a meeting of women laundry-workers who were on strike. We believed we could help
these women with a legislative measure and asked their support. «Oh! that
stuff!» exclaimed one of these women. «Don't you know that we women
might be dead and buried if we waited for politicians and lawmakers to right our
wrongs?» This set me to thinking--not merely of the immediate problem--but
to asking myself how much any male politician could understand of the wrongs inflicted
upon poor working women.
I threw the weight of my study and activity into
the economic and industrial struggle. Here I discovered men and women fired with
the glorious vision of a new world, of a proletarian world emancipated, a Utopian
world,--it glowed in romantic colours for the majority of those with whom I came
in closest contact. The next step, the immediate step, was another matter, less
romantic and too often less encouraging. In their ardor, some of the labor leaders
of that period almost convinced us that the millennium was just around the corner.
Those were the pre-war days of dramatic strikes. But even when most under the spell
of the new vision, the sight of the overburdened wives of the strikers, with their
puny babies and their broods of under-fed children, made us stop and think of a
neglected factor in the march toward our earthly paradise. It was well enough to
ask the poor men workers to carry on the battle against economic injustice. But
what results could be expected when they were forced in addition to carry the burden
of their ever-growing families? This question loomed large to those of us who came
into intimate contact with the women and children. We saw that in the final analysis
the real burden of economic and industrial warfare was thrust upon the frail, all-too-
frail shoulders of the children, the very babies--the coming generation. In their
wan faces, in their undernourished bodies, would be indelibly written the bitter
defeat of their parents.
The eloquence of those who led the underpaid and
half-starved workers could no longer, for me, at least, ring with conviction. Something
more than the purely economic interpretation was involved. The bitter struggle for
bread, for a home and material comfort, was but one phase of the problem. There
was another phase, perhaps even more fundamental, that had been absolutely neglected
by the adherents of the new dogmas. That other phase was the driving power of instinct,
a power uncontrolled and unnoticed. The great fundamental instinct of sex was expressing
itself in these ever-growing broods, in the prosperity of the slum midwife and her
colleague the slum undertaker. In spite of all my sympathy with the dream of liberated
Labor, I was driven to ask whether this urging power of sex, this deep instinct,
was not at least partially responsible, along with industrial injustice, for the
widespread misery of the world.
To find an answer to this problem which at that
point in my experience I could not solve, I determined to study conditions in Europe.
Perhaps there I might discover a new approach, a great illumination. Just before
the outbreak of the war, I visited France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain. Everywhere
I found the same dogmas and prejudices among labor leaders, the same intense but
limited vision, the same insistence upon the purely economic phases of human nature,
the same belief that if the problem of hunger were solved, the question of the women
and children would take care of itself. In this attitude I discovered, then, what
seemed to me to be purely masculine reasoning; and because it was purely masculine,
it could at best be but half true. Feminine insight must be brought to bear on all
questions; and here, it struck me, the fallacy of the masculine, the all-too- masculine,
was brutally exposed. I was encouraged and strengthened in this attitude by the
support of certain leaders who had studied human nature and who had reached the
same conclusion: that civilization could not solve the problem of Hunger until it
recognized the titanic strength of the sexual instinct. In Spain, I found that Lorenzo
Portet, who was carrying on the work of the martyred Francisco Ferrer, had reached
this same conclusion. In Italy, Enrico Malatesta, the valiant leader who was after
the war to play so dramatic a rÖle, was likewise combating the current dogma
of the orthodox Socialists. In Berlin, Rudolph Rocker was engaged in the thankless
task of puncturing the articles of faith of the orthodox Marxian religion. It is
quite needless to add that these men who had probed beneath the surface of the problem
and had diagnosed so much more completely the complex malady of contemporary society
were intensely disliked by the superficial theorists of the neo-Marxian School.
The gospel of Marx had, however, been too long
and too thoroughly inculcated into the minds of millions of workers in Europe, to
be discarded. It is a flattering doctrine, since it teaches the laborer that all
the fault is with someone else, that he is the victim of circumstances, and not
even a partner in the creation of his own and his child's misery. Not without significance
was the additional discovery that I made. I found that the Marxian influence tended
to lead workers to believe that, irrespective of the health of the poor mothers,
the earning capacity of the wage-earning fathers, or the upbringing of the children,
increase of the proletarian family was a benefit, not a detriment to the revolutionary
movement. The greater the number of hungry mouths, the emptier the stomachs, the
more quickly would the «Class War» be precipitated. The greater the
increase in population among the proletariat, the greater the incentive to revolution.
This may not be sound Marxian theory; but it is the manner in which it is popularly
accepted. It is the popular belief, wherever the Marxian influence is strong. This
I found especially in England and Scotland. In speaking to groups of dockworkers
on strike in Glasgow, and before the communist and co- operative guilds throughout
England, I discovered a prevailing opposition to the recognition of sex as a factor
in the perpetuation of poverty. The leaders and theorists were immovable in their
opposition. But when once I succeeded in breaking through the surface opposition
of the rank and file of the workers, I found that they were willing to recognize
the power of this neglected factor in their lives.
So central, so fundamental in the life of every
man and woman is this problem that they need be taught no elaborate or imposing
theory to explain their troubles. To approach their problems by the avenue of sex
and reproduction is to reveal at once their fundamental relations to the whole economic
and biological structure of society. Their interest is immediately and completely
awakened. But always, as I soon discovered, the ideas and habits of thought of these
submerged masses have been formed through the Press, the Church, through political
institutions, all of which had built up a conspiracy of silence around a subject
that is of no less vital importance than that of Hunger. A great wall separates
the masses from those imperative truths that must be known and flung wide if civilization
is to be saved. As currently constituted, Church, Press, Education seem to-day organized
to exploit the ignorance and the prejudices of the masses, rather than to light
their way to self-salvation.
Such was the situation in 1914, when I returned
to America, determined, since the exclusively masculine point of view had dominated
too long, that the other half of the truth should be made known. The Birth Control
movement was launched because it was in this form that the whole relation of woman
and child--eternal emblem of the future of society--could be more effectively dramatized.
The amazing growth of this movement dates from the moment when in my home a small
group organized the first Birth Control League. Since then we have been criticized
for our choice of the term «Birth Control» to express the idea of modern
scientific contraception. I have yet to hear any criticism of this term that is
not based upon some false and hypocritical sense of modesty, or that does not arise
out of a semi- prurient misunderstanding of its aim. On the other hand: nothing
better expresses the idea of purposive, responsible, and self-directed guidance
of the reproductive powers.
Those critics who condemn Birth Control as a negative,
destructive idea, concerned only with self-gratification, might profitably open
the nearest dictionary for a definition of «control.» There they would
discover that the verb «control» means to exercise a directing, guiding,
or restraining influence;--to direct, to regulate, to counteract. Control is guidance,
direction, foresight. it implies intelligence, forethought and responsibility. They
will find in the Standard Dictionary a quotation from Lecky to the effect that,
«The greatest of all evils in politics is power without control.» In
what phase of life is not «power without control» an evil? Birth Control,
therefore, means not merely the limitation of births, but the application of intelligent
guidance over the reproductive power. It means the substitution of reason and intelligence
for the blind play of instinct.
The term «Birth Control» had the immense
practical advantage of compressing into two short words the answer to the inarticulate
demands of millions of men and women in all countries. At the time this slogan was
formulated, I had not yet come to the complete realization of the great truth that
had been thus crystallized. It was the response to the overwhelming, heart-breaking
appeals that came by every mail for aid and advice, which revealed a great truth
that lay dormant, a truth that seemed to spring into full vitality almost over night--that
could never again be crushed to earth!
Nor could I then have realized the number and the
power of the enemies who were to be aroused into activity by this idea. So completely
was I dominated by this conviction of the efficacy of «control,» that
I could not until later realize the extent of the sacrifices that were to be exacted
of me and of those who supported my campaign. The very idea of Birth Control resurrected
the spirit of the witch-hunters of Salem. Could they have usurped the power, they
would have burned us at the stake. Lacking that power, they used the weapon of suppression,
and invoked medieval statutes to send us to jail. These tactics had an effect the
very opposite to that intended. They demonstrated the vitality of the idea of Birth
Control, and acted as counter-irritant on the actively intelligent sections of the
American community. Nor was the interest aroused confined merely to America. The
neo-Malthusian movement in Great Britain with its history of undaunted bravery,
came to our support; and I had the comfort of knowing that the finest minds of England
did not hesitate a moment in the expression of their sympathy and support.
In America, on the other hand, I found from the
beginning until very recently that the so-called intellectuals exhibited a curious
and almost inexplicable reticence in supporting Birth Control. They even hesitated
to voice any public protest against the campaign to crush us which was inaugurated
and sustained by the most reactionary and sinister forces in American life. It was
not inertia or any lack of interest on the part of the masses that stood in our
way. It was the indifference of the intellectual leaders.
Writers, teachers, ministers, editors, who form
a class dictating, if not creating, public opinion, are, in this country, singularly
inhibited or unconscious of their true function in the community. One of their first
duties, it is certain, should be to champion the constitutional right of free speech
and free press, to welcome any idea that tends to awaken the critical attention
of the great American public. But those who reveal themselves as fully cognizant
of this public duty are in the minority, and must possess more than average courage
to survive the enmity such an attitude provokes.
One of the chief aims of the present volume is
to stimulate American intellectuals to abandon the mental habits which prevent them
from seeing human nature as a whole, instead of as something that can be pigeonholed
into various compartments or classes. Birth Control affords an approach to the study
of humanity because it cuts through the limitations of current methods. It is economic,
biological, psychological and spiritual in its aspects. It awakens the vision of
mankind moving and changing, of humanity growing and developing, coming to fruition,
of a race creative, flowering into beautiful expression through talent and genius.
As a social programme, Birth Control is not merely
concerned with population questions. In this respect, it is a distinct step in advance
of earlier Malthusian doctrines, which concerned themselves chiefly with economics
and population. Birth Control concerns itself with the spirit no less than the body.
It looks for the liberation of the spirit of woman and through woman of the child.
To-day motherhood is wasted, penalized, tortured. Children brought into the world
by unwilling mother suffer an initial handicap that cannot be measured by cold statistics.
Their lives are blighted from the start. To substantiate this fact, I have chosen
to present the conclusions of reports on Child Labor and records of defect and delinquency
published by organizations with no bias in favour of Birth Control. The evidence
is before us. It crowds in upon us from all sides. But prior to this new approach,
no attempt had been made to correlate the effects of the blind and irresponsible
play of the sexual instinct with its deep- rooted causes.
The duty of the educator and the intellectual creator
of public opinion is, in this connection, of the greatest importance. For centuries
official moralists, priests, clergymen and teachers, statesmen and politicians have
preached the doctrine of glorious and divine fertility. To-day, we are confronted
with the world-wide spectacle of the realization of this doctrine. It is not without
significance that the moron and the imbecile set the pace in living up to this teaching,
and that the intellectuals, the educators, the archbishops, bishops, priests, who
are most insistent on it, are the staunchest adherents in their own lives of celibacy
and non-fertility. It is time to point out to the champions of unceasing and indiscriminate
fertility the results of their teaching.
One of the greatest difficulties in giving to the
public a book of this type is the impossibility of keeping pace with the events
and changes of a movement that is now, throughout the world, striking root and growing.
The changed attitude of the American Press indicates that enlightened public opinion
no longer tolerates a policy of silence upon a question of the most vital importance.
Almost simultaneously in England and America, two incidents have broken through
the prejudice and the guarded silence of centuries. At the church Congress in Birmingham,
October 12, 1921, Lord Dawson, the king's physician, in criticizing the report of
the Lambeth Conference concerning Birth Control, delivered an address defending
this practice. Of such bravery and eloquence that it could not be ignored, this
address electrified the entire British public. It aroused a storm of abuse, and
yet succeeded, as no propaganda could, in mobilizing the forces of progress and
intelligence in the support of the cause.
Just one month later, the First American Birth
Control Conference culminated in a significant and dramatic incident. At the close
of the conference a mass meeting was scheduled in the Town Hall, New York City,
to discuss the morality of Birth Control. Mr. Harold Cox, editor of the Edinburgh
Review, who had come to New York to attend the conference, was to lead the discussion.
It seemed only natural for us to call together scientists, educators, members of
the medical profession, and theologians of all denominations, to ask their opinion
upon this uncertain and important phase of the controversy. Letters were sent to
eminent men and women in different parts of the world. In this letter we asked the
We sent this questionnaire not only to those who
we thought might agree with us, but we sent it also to our known opponents.
When I arrived at the Town Hall the entrance was
guarded by policemen. They told me there would be no meeting. Before my arrival
r executives had been greeted by Monsignor Dineen, secretary of Archbishop Hayes,
of the Roman Catholic archdiocese, who informed them that the meeting would be prohibited
on the ground that it was contrary to public morals. The police had closed the doors.
When they opened them to permit the exit of the large audience which had gathered,
Mr. Cox and I entered. I attempted to exercise my constitutional right of free speech,
but was prohibited and arrested. Miss Mary Winsor, who protested against this unwarranted
arrest, was likewise dragged off to the police station. The case was dismissed the
following morning. The ecclesiastic instigators of the affair were conspicuous by
their absence from the police court. But the incident was enough to expose the opponents
of Birth Control and the extreme methods they used to combat our progress. The case
was too flagrant, too gross an affront, to pass unnoticed by the newspapers. The
progress of our movement was indicated in the changed attitude of the American Press,
which had perceived the danger to the public of the unlawful tactics used by the
enemies of Birth Control in preventing open discussion of a vital question.
No social idea has inspired its advocates with
more bravery, tenacity, and courage than Birth Control. From the early days of Francis
Place and Richard Carlile, to those of the Drysdales and Edward Trulove, of Bradlaugh
and Mrs. Annie Besant, its advocates have faced imprisonment and ostracism. In the
whole history of the English movement, there has been no more courageous figure
than that of the venerable Alice Drysdale Vickery, the undaunted torch-bearer who
has bridged the silence of forty-four years--since the Bradlaugh-Besant trial. She
stands head and shoulders above the professional feminists. Serenely has she withstood
jeers and jests. To-day, she continues to point out to the younger generation which
is devoted to newer palliatives the fundamental relation between Sex and Hunger.
The First American Birth Control Conference, held
at the same time as the Washington Conference for the Limitation of Armaments, marks
a turning-point in our approach to social problems. The Conference made evident
the fact that in every field of scientific and social endeavour the most penetrating
thinkers are now turning to the consideration of our problem as a fundamental necessity
to American civilization. They are coming to see that a QUALITATIVE factor as opposed
to a QUANTITATIVE one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses
Certain fundamental convictions should be made
clear here. The programme for Birth. Control is not a charity. It is not aiming
to interfere in the private lives of poor people, to tell them how many children
they should have, nor to sit in judgment upon their fitness to become parents. It
aims, rather, to awaken responsibility, to answer the demand for a scientific means
by which and through which each human life may be self-directed and self-controlled.
The exponent of Birth Control, in short, is convinced that social regeneration,
no less than individual regeneration, must come from within. Every potential parent,
and especially every potential mother, must be brought to an acute realization of
the primary and individual responsibility of bringing children into this world.
Not until the parents of this world are given control over their reproductive faculties
will it be possible to improve the quality of the generations of the future, or
even to maintain civilization at its present level. Only when given intelligent
mastery of the procreative powers can the great mass of humanity be aroused to a
realization of responsibility of parenthood. We have come to the conclusion, based
on widespread investigation and experience, that education for parenthood must be
based upon the needs and demands of the people themselves. An idealistic code of
sexual ethics, imposed from above, a set of rules devised by high-minded theorists
who fail to take into account the living conditions and desires of the masses, can
never be of the slightest value in effecting change in the customs of the people.
Systems so imposed in the past have revealed their woeful inability to prevent the
sexual and racial chaos into which the world has drifted.
The universal demand for practical education in
Birth Control is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves to-day
possess the divine spark of regeneration. It remains for the courageous and the
enlightened to answer this demand, to kindle the spark, to direct a thorough education
in sex hygiene based upon this intense interest.
Birth Control is thus the entering wedge for the
educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged
mothers, it is possible to use their interest as the foundation for education in
prophylaxis, hygiene and infant welfare. The potential mother can then be shown
that maternity need not be slavery but may be the most effective avenue to self-development
and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.
The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the
«unfit» and the «fit,» admittedly the greatest present menace
to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition
between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of
the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty- stricken, should not be
held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile,
parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent
problem to- day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally
and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon
American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic
breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism.
To effect the salvation of the generations of the
future--nay, of the generations of to-day--our greatest need, first of all, is the
ability to face the situation without flinching; to cooperate in the formation of
a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding
of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with
all the intelligence and honesty at our command. If we can summon the bravery to
do this, we shall best be serving the pivotal interests of civilization.
To conclude this introduction: my initiation, as
I have confessed, was primarily an emotional one. My interest in Birth Control was
awakened by experience. Research and investigation have followed. Our effort has
been to raise our program from the plane of the emotional to the plane of the scientific.
Any social progress, it is my belief, must purge itself of sentimentalism and pass
through the crucible of science. We are willing to submit Birth Control to this
test. It is part of the purpose of this book to appeal to the scientist for aid,
to arouse that interest which will result in widespread research and investigation.
I believe that my personal experience with this idea must be that of the race at
large. We must temper our emotion and enthusiasm with the impersonal determination
of science. We must unite in the task of creating an instrument of steel, strong
but supple, if we are to triumph finally in the war for human emancipation.