Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Audrey Leathard

Abstract

As an agent of social change, the family planning movement had great potential. During its fifty-three years of clinc development and struggles for provision, one can now ask, in retrospect, how far was it identified with wider moves made towards female emancipation and the liberalisation of attitudes to sex? What part did it play as a pressure group? How far did it change the attitudes of churches, doctors, government bodies and individuals to family planning? Why did birth control services take so long to become a public responsibility? Finally, in the light of social change, what was the FPA’s special contribution and achievement?

Keywords

Family Planning Married Woman Pressure Group Family Planning Service Oral Contraception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. Klein, Britain’s Married Women Workers (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965) p. 14.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Frost, The Tactics of Pressure (London: Galliard, 1975) pp. 84–91.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Dowse and J. Peel, ‘The Politics of Birth Control’, Political Studies, XIII, 2 (1965) p. 196.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Nightingale, Charities (London: Allen Lane, 1973) pp. 95–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frost, pp. 61–3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., p. 42.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., p. 99.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nightingale, pp. 97–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid., p. 210.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ‘Family Planning in Practice’, The Times, 17 July 1959.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Lafitte, Family Planning in the Sixties (London: Family Planning Association, 1963) Chapter 6, p. 19.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Notably Freda Parker, Nancy Raphael, Sylvia Ponsonby, Elizabeth Mitchell and Pamela Sheridan.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lafitte, Chapter 5, p. 9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Lafitte, ‘Abortion in Britain Today’, New Society, 22, 532 (1972) pp. 622–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Abel-Smith, The General Rapporteur’s Report: Planning for the Future (London: International Planned Parenthood Federation, 1973) p. 12.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Rivers, Politics by Pressure (London: Harrap, 1974) p. 144.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., pp. 30–1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. R. McGregor, ‘Equality, sexual values and permissive legislation: the English experience’, Journal of Social Policy, 1, 1 (1972) p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Currie and A. Gilbert, Churches and Churchgoers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) p. 37.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGregor, p. 56.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. McLaren, Birth Control in Nineteenth Century England (London: Croom Helm, 1978) p. 136.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Aitken-Swan, Fertility Control and the Medical Profession (London: Croom Helm, 1977) p. 204.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Robinson, personal interview, 26 November 1974.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. M. Pierce and G. Rowntree, ‘Birth Control in Britain’, Population Studies, XV, 2 (1961) p. 153.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Peel and G. Carr, Contraception and Family Design (London: Churchill Livingstone, 1975) pp. 83–4.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Diggory and J. McEwan, Planning or Prevention? (London: Marion Boyars, 1976) pp. 94–8;Google Scholar
  27. M. Woolf, Family Intentions (London: HMSO, 1971);Google Scholar
  28. J. F. Pearson, ‘Social and Psychological Aspects of Extra-Marital First Conceptions’, Journal of Biosocial Science, 5, 4 (1973) pp. 453–95;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Askham, Fertility and Deprivation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975);Google Scholar
  30. J. Busfield and M. Paddon, Thinking About Children (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    ‘Birth Control in the Coal Mining Areas’, Spectator, 141, 5236 (1928) p. 643.Google Scholar
  32. 28.
    J. Busfield and G. Hawthorn, ‘Some Social Determinants of Recent Trends in British Fertility’, Journal of Biosocial Science, Supplement No. 3 (1971) pp. 65–77;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. J. Peel, ‘The Hull Family Survey’, Journal of Biosocial Science, 4, 3 (1972) pp. 333–46;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Bone, Measures of Contraceptive Effectiveness and their Uses (London: HMSO, 1975) p. 1.Google Scholar
  35. 29.
    C. Davies, Permissive Britain (London: Pitman, 1975).Google Scholar
  36. 30.
    V. Greenwood and J. Young, Abortion in Demand (London: Pluto Press, 1976) pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  37. 31.
    For example: a key member of the Abortion Law Reform Association, Mr Alastair Service, subsequently became heavily involved in pressing for divorce law reform.Google Scholar
  38. 32.
    Dowse and Peel, pp. 182, 187.Google Scholar
  39. 33.
    FPA, 38th Report and Accounts 1969/70, p. 4.Google Scholar
  40. 34.
    M. Bone, Family Planning Services in England and Wales (London: HMSO, 1973) pp. 5, 14. Of the 24 per cent of British married women aged sixteen to forty who were current users of the family planning services in 1970, 14 per cent consulted their GP, 1 per cent used other doctors and 9 per cent used family planning clinics.Google Scholar
  41. 35.
    Lafitte, Family Planning in the Sixties, Chapter 1, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  42. 36.
    ‘Family planning waste of medical manpower’, Daily Telegraph, 5 April 1974; C. Brook, personal interview, 21 February 1974.Google Scholar
  43. 37.
    M. Simms, ‘Women’s Needs’, in The Pill . . on or off Prescription? (London: Family Planning Association, 1976) p. 8.Google Scholar
  44. 38.
    S. Rowbotham and J. Weeks, Socialism and the New Life, (London: Pluto Press, 1977) p. 178.Google Scholar
  45. 39.
    E. Wilson, Women and the Welfare State (London: Tavistock, 1977) p. 152. This neatly summarises the views expressed in the report by Sir William Beveridge, Social Insurance and Allied Services, Cmd 6404 (London: HMSO, 1942) pp. 52–3.Google Scholar
  46. 40.
    Wilson, pp. 60–1.Google Scholar
  47. 41.
    J. A. and O. Banks, Feminism and Family Planning in Victorian England (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1964).Google Scholar
  48. 42.
    A. Myrdal and V. Klein, Women’s Two Roles (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956) p. 54.Google Scholar
  49. A. Hunt, A Survey of Women’s Employment, I, SS 379 (London: Government Social Survey, 1968) pp. 9, 25, 86, 255. Department of Employment Manpower Paper No. 11, Women and Work (London: HMSO, 1975) p. 3. See also: OPCS, ‘The changing circumstances of women 1971–76’, Population Trends 13 (London: HMSO, 1978) pp. 17–22.Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    This would refer more to middle-class women; previously, working-class women had to go out to work, they needed the money.Google Scholar
  51. 45.
    Myrdal and Klein, p. xii.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    N. Seear, ‘Womanpower needs a Policy’, New Society, 1, 9 (1962) pp. 1416.Google Scholar
  53. 47.
    The Equal Pay Act 1970; The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.Google Scholar
  54. 48.
    Simms, p. 9.Google Scholar
  55. 49.
    Peel and Carr, pp. 39, 47. See also for continuing trend: M. Woolf and S. Pegden, Families Five Years On (London: HMSO, 1976);Google Scholar
  56. A. Cartwright, Recent Trends in Family Building and Contraception (London: HMSO, 1978).Google Scholar
  57. 50.
    ‘Father to the Man’, New Society, 34, 690 (1975) p. 674.Google Scholar
  58. 51.
    L. and D. Nandy, ‘Towards true equality for women’, New Society, 31, 643 (1975) pp. 246–9.Google Scholar
  59. 52.
    Peel and Carr, pp. 47, 67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Audrey Leathard 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audrey Leathard

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations