In which the Economist literally refers to stay-at-home parenting as "a 100% earnings decline." Is this what a family culture in a death spiral looks like?https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1063724705591541760 …
Show this thread
-
It was not so much about avoiding children as it was avoiding certain children from certain families who were deemed "unfit." I appreciate the blunt honesty of Sanger, Osborn, and Fantham regardless of how delusional and repellent their ideas were.pic.twitter.com/IDbpSQPV70
Remember that eugenicists were very split on birth control ("good" couples could use it, gasp) & Sanger's central point (people should govern themselves re: BC) was not popular. Very interesting (& messed up) point in history, w/ forced sterilizations + an effective ban on sex ed
-
-
it seems like once the pill was out there, the creators’ intentions didn’t have any further effect on society
-
I also suspect it looks like more of flash point than it actually was. Tons of forms of BC already existed & were improving; anti-contraception Comstock laws weren't preventing the public sale of condoms & cervical caps. The gentry, in particular, knew how to avoid pregnancy
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.