(Part One) (Part Two)Okay, the last few chapters have a lot of eugenics and also a lot of unethical medical and corporate behaviour in general, which I’m not talking about because they just make me want to stab people. (If you thought eugenics was over with after WWII, well. I’m so sorry.) The US was totally happy to fund international birth control as long as it was being sold as population control rather than women’s liberation.
A lot of population control proponents thought that the major problem with the Pill was that it was being taken by white suburban middle class women, instead of the women who “most needed” it - but they didn’t actually trust that poor uneducated women could follow the complicated procedure of taking one pill every day. In context with their support of IUDs it mostly looks like they objected to birth control methods which required women to take them
voluntarily.
Anyway, her argument is that the Pill created a new idea of non-sick women seeing doctors and taking regular medications, and being viewed by the medical profession as patients, even though they were technically healthy. Which probably had effects well beyond birth control.
The Pill was approved in May 1960 and became the most popular form of birth control in America by 1965, used by over 6.5 million married women … and some number of unmarried women whom the official statistics ignored.
It was originally tested in Puerto Rico, because the scientists involved wanted to be away from the American press. Then the
Puerto Rican press wrote articles accusing them of using poor people of colour as guinea pigs for a medication they wouldn’t test on white people, which was true.
And apparently in 2001 when she was writing the most popular form of birth control was female sterilization. Which, unlike the Pill, was usually covered by insurance, and meant you didn’t have to worry about losing your insurance later. ...I am trying to find a polite way of saying “Your country is a barbaric hellscape.”
She’s writing a history of the market, rather than really a social history. She does point out that most capitalist historians focus on the success stories rather than the millions of entrepreneurs who went out of business for whatever reason, and she in contrast gives cases on both sides.
I got less interested as the book got closer to the present, and I am dubious about some of Tone’s conclusions based on the information she herself provides. But in general excellent, glad I read it.