2) The document is written for civilized people, because surely the document wouldn't call its readers primitive;
3) The flip side of "developed muscles" is "barbaric lifestyle" - the "proper" thing for women at the time was NOT to develop said muscles, but rather to maintain a "trim figure" ("one of the best exercises for a woman are her household duties, and that besides those she doesn't need more exercise", from a 1941 article);
4) In sum, given the context, the "endorsement" is a grudging admission that on this one issue the "primitive" women might be stronger, but in no way an overall endorsement of the lifestyle.
> "trim figure"
Where are you getting these quotes from?
It divides people into "primitive" and "civilized", which delineates an ingroup and outgroup;
Right, in the context of "look at us poor pathetic civilized people whose broken bodies need this apparatus to reproduce unlike those strong primitives who can do it in the normal way.
Classist: Because of course, that's bunkum. Because even in 1960's "civilized" american society, maybe the upper class lady would keep herself "in confinement" but that doesn't mean that the majority of women would or could.
So no, I wouldn't say it's anti-classist.
(Note: I had presumed that George Blonsky was a doctor - but no, apparently he was a "mining engineer". I suspect he would have been reasonably well educated, but maybe not if he thought spinning pregnant women around to expel their babies was a good idea. So I don't know - maybe the classism was accidental. But it's definitely there.)
Isn't it an anti-classist tone if anything? It's associating "civilization" with weakness, confinement, and a lack of opportunity, and associating primitive living with fully developed muscles and says it provides for a normal and quick delivery. How is that not an endorsement of primitive living? I don't see how you can call that paragraph colonialist unless you see the word "civilized" and just turn your brain off.